ML20151T520
| ML20151T520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/15/1988 |
| From: | PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20151T498 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8804290054 | |
| Download: ML20151T520 (131) | |
Text
r ESMN 00CgETED April 15, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI'h.l[
Si t before the l
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' DIRECT TESTIMONY NO. 6 (Sheltering)
Eanel Members:
John W.
Baer, Emergency Planning Specialist, Aidikoff Associates Donald W.
Bell, Senior Nuclear Technology Engineer, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
John D.
Bonds, Assistant Director for Planning, Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services Anthony M. Callendrello, Manager, Emergency Planning, New Hampshire Yankee faul R.
Frechette, Jr., Senior Emergency Planner, New Hampshire Yankee James A. MacDonald, Radiological Assessment Manager, New Hampshire Yankee Dennis Mileti, Professor of Sociology and Director of the Hazards Assessment Laboratory, Colorado State University Richard H. Strome, Director, New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management William T. Wallace, Jr., M.D.,
M.P.H.,
Director, Division of Public Health Services, New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services h$h DO R
G
L l
i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION.
1 PLANNING BASIS FOR PROTECTIVE ACTIONS 4
1.
Concept of Protective Action Decisionmaking 4
a.
Purpose of Protective Actions.
4 b.
Protective Action Guides and Projected Doses 5
c.
Protective Action Recommendation Decisionmaking for the General Public.
7 d.
Decisionmaking Criteria for Seasonal Beach Populations 10 2.
Implementation of Precautionary and Protective Actions for the Summer, Seasonal Population 13 a.
Public Alert and Notification.
13 b.
Precautionary Actions 15 c.
Evacuation As A Protective Action.
17 d.
Shelter-In-Place 18 (1)
General Considerations 18 (2)
Transients Without Transportation 20 (3)
Stone & Webster Shelter Study, August 1987 21 3.
Implementation of Protective Actions for Campgrounds 22 a.
Notification 23 b.
Actions 23
4.
Sheltering for the General Public 24 a.
Concept of Shelter-in-Place 24 b.
Assessment of Existing Shelter Adequacy.
25 (1)
Shelter Effectiveness of Residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ 26 (2)
Shelter Effectiveness of Schools and Day Care Centers.
27 APPENDIX 1:
Letter of Richard H.
Strome to Henry G.
Vickers dated February 11, 1988 with,
Attachments I and II ATTACHMENT 1:
State of New Hampshire Protective Action Decision Criteria, NHRERP, Vol.
4, Appendix F (identical to Vol. 4A, Appendix U)
ATTACHMENT 2:
NHRERP, Vol.
1, Sections 2.6.7, 2.6.8 ATTACHMENT 3:
Supplemental Analysis of Potential Shelter Capacity of the Seabrook EPZ Beach Areas 11 -
INTRODUCTION The NHRERP provides for a range of protective responses that may be implemented to protect the health and safety of the public, including summer, seasonal populations.
- Further, this range of responses has the flexibility to ensure dose savings in responsc to a wide spectrum of accident conditions.
The concept of protective action recommendation decisionmaking employed by the NHRERP is patterned on the emergency planning guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 and emergency' planning regulations of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Protective Action Guides (PAGs) of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been incorporated in the NHRERP and provisions have been mede for calculation I
of projected dose which permits reliance on the PAGs for protectivo action decisionmaking.
Decision criterin have been developed and committed to procedures to aid accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers in making choices among available protective action options including that of sheltering.
The NHRERP provides for precautionary actions intended to avoid exposure of the beach population to potential radiological risk.
Plans and procedures, including decision criteria, have been put into place specifically for implementation of these measures.
Accident assessment i
(
personnel of the State of New Hampshire are prepared by procedures and training to ascertain from utility emergency response personnel the status and prognosis of plant conditions and safety systems for the purpose of recommending precautionary actions prior to the manifestation of radiological consequences.
While the preferred protective action for the seasonal beach population is the precautionary measure of early beach closure or evacuation, the State of New Hampshire is prepared to recommend the protective action of sheltering in a limited number of circumstances.
These are described in the New Hampshire Response to FEMA Supplemental Testimony, Enclosure 1 to letter of Richard H.
Strome to Henry G. Vickers dated February 11, 1988 (Appendix 1 to this testimony).
The NHRERP provides the method and means to ensure prompt notification of the summer, seasonal population of precautionary and protective actions to be taken.
This is primarily accomplished by a system of fixed sirens providing coverage of the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
In addition, sirens providing coverage for beach areas of concern have public address capability for which a taped, voice message containing instructions for the beach population has been developed.
Each campground in the EPZ will be offered a tone-alert radio to supplement notification by the siren system.
Both beach areas and campgrounds will be supplied with public information materials in the form of -
durable signs in the beach area, posters, and brochures that provide instructions to the public on actions to take in an emergency.
The NHRERP includes a special facility plan for each campground in the EPZ.
These plans call for campground operators to ensure that campground users are notified of an emergency.
The campground operators will either close the campgrounds as a precautionary measure or evacuate them based on the protective action recommended for the general population.
Campground users constitute neither a significantly large segment of the population nor an incrdinate concentration of persons in any one area of the EPZ so as to impede their rapid departure from the EPZ in the event of an emergency.
The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6.5, contains a discussion of the relative, representative values of dose reduction factors for typical structures to be found in the Seabrook Station EPZ.
This discussion concludes that essentially any residential structure in the Scabrook Station EPZ affords a dose reduction factor of at least 0.9 which is assumed by the NHRERP for the purpose of choosing between the protective action options of evacuation and sheltering.
Furthermore, schools and day care centers are presumed to share the characteristics of structures that prevail in l
the Seabrook Station EPZ and to have at least the same dose reduction factors.
Because protective action recommendations -__
for the general public apply also to schools and day care centers, evaluation of the protection afforded by the individual structures is not considered as part of the decisionmaking process.
PLANNING BASIS FOR PROTECTIVE ACTIONS The NHRERP Volume 1 and the local plans, Volumes 16 through 32, and specifically plans for the Towns of Seabrook and Hampton, Volumes 16 and 18 respectively, provide for a range of responses that may be implemented to protect the health and safety of the public, including the summer, seasonal populations, in the event of a radiological emergency.
This range of responses has the flexibility to achieve dose savings in response to a wide spectrum of conditions.
The plans are premised on the basic concept of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 that any one or a combination of responses will be taken to achieve the maximum dose savings to the public.
The responses prescribed by the NHRERP range from precautionary actions for the beach population at the early stages of an emergency to the protective actions for the general public of shelter, evacuation, and control of access to affected areas.
1.
Concept of Protective Action Decisionmaking J
a.
Purpose of Protective Actions The NHRERP is based on the planning guidance of NUREG-0654, which states at page 6: l
The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose savings (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could produce offsite doses in excess of Protective Action Guides (PAGs).
The NHRERP is predicated on the understanding that emergency planning for a nuclear plant is not required to be designed to address any particular accident sequence or a "worst case accident".
NUREG-0654 states further at page 6:
No specific accident sequence should be isolated as the one for which to plan because each accident could have different consequences, both in degree and nature.
The protective action decision criteria of the NHRERP take into consideration plant conditions, evacuation clear times, dose reduction factors, and other conditions that may exist at the time of an accident.
b.
Protective Action Guides and Projected Doses Protective Action Guides (PAGs) are criteria provided for use by public health officials and decisionmakers to determine the need for protective actions and for choosing appropriate protective actions.
The U.S.
EPA promulgated PAGs on the basis of projected doses which act as trigger points to initiate protective actions.
The U.S.
EPA Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents, EPA - 520/1-75-001, cautions:
A Protective Action Guide under no circumstance implies an acceptable dose.
Since the PAG is based on projected dose, -
it is used only in an ex post facto effort to minimize the risk from an event which is occurring or has already occurred.
(Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Action for
- luclear.Icidents, U.S.
EPA, September 1975 (Revised June 1980), pg. 1.1.)
In sum, PAGs are guidance tools for use by decisionmakers and are not levels of acceptable or unacceptable risks.
The NHRERP Volume 1, Section 2.6.3 incorporates the U.S.
EPA PAGs for direct exposure to radioactive materials within the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ.
The range of PAG doses delineated by the U.S.
EPA for the general public are indicated in Table 2.6-1 of the NHRERP.
The guidelines incorporated in Table 2.6-1 consider the most sensitive members of the general population:
women who are pregnant and infants.
As expressed in Section 2.6.3, New Hampshire has chosen to base its protective action decisions on the lowest values cited by the U.S.
EPA, that is, a 1 rem whole-body projected dose, and a 5 rem thyroid projected dose.
In order to utilize the PAGs, projected doses to the general public must be determined.
Projected doses must be determined following the incident based on data from (1) plant conditions, (2) release and meteorological conditions,
,(3) offsite radiological measurements, or (4) combinations of these three factors.
(Manual of Protective Action Guides, U.S.
EPA, p. 5.1.)
The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.2 provides for estimating the projected doses for the Plume Exposure Pathway EPZ and for reporting projected doses as quickly as possible in terms of whole body and thyroid doses.
NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.3 describes the means by which State of New Hampshire officials will determine projected doses.
Calculation techniques for this purpose are explicated in procedures contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendices N, O,
P, and Q.
Each of these procedures incorporates the factors identified in the U.S.
EPA Manual for determining projected dose.
c.
Protective Action Recommendation Decisionmaking for the General Public NUREG-0654, criterion J.
9 provides that:
Each State and local organization shall establish a capability for impicmenting protective measures based upon protective action guides and other criteria.
This shall be consistent with the recommendations of EPA regarding exposure resulting from passage of radioactive airborne plumes.
The utility will classify an event based on plant conditions.
At a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency classification level, predesignated plant conditions will result in specific protective action recommendations from the utility to the State of New Hampshire.
If the event is classified as a Site Area Emergency or General Emergency, and plant conditions do not result in a specific protective action recommendation from the utility to the State, then the appropriate protective action will be reached by utilizing the decision criteria described in modified Section 2.6.7, as - -
discussed infra.
These criteria are used by decisionmakers for choosing between sheltering and evacuation, and are sufficiently flexible to be applied to any type of projected or actual release from a nuclear power plant.
The decision criteria depicted in modified Figure 2.6-7 of the NHRERP consider the time to release, time of plume arrival at a specified location, time of exposure at the reference location, projected dose, EPA PAGs, time available to make protective action decision, time available to implement protective actions, constraints to implementation of protective action decision, and dose reduction factors pertinent to either sheltering or evacuation.
At the final decision step in the process, the decision criteria call fo-detailed analysis and calculations to determine the comparative effectiveness of shelter and evacuation.
NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U contains procedures to be used by accident assessment personnel of the New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services (DPHS) in applying the NHRERP decision criteria.
A revision to this procedure is being incorporated into an update of the NHRERP and is provided as Attachment 1.
The State of New Hampshire protective action decisionmaking procedures recognize that the utility will evaluate plant status at the Site Area Emergency and General Emergency classification levels which may result in a protective action recommendation.
DPHS accident assessment personnel at tne State Incident Field
-8
a W
. Office (IFO), co-located with the Utility Emergency Operations Facility (EOF) in Newington, New Hampshire, will obtain plant data in conjunction with' utility accident l
assessment personnel and verify the utility protective action recommendation.
)
i The State Emergency Operations Center (EOC), IFO, and
- EOF are activated at the Alert emergency classification level.
Prior to the activation of these facilities, the DPHS Emergency Response Initiator is instructed to contact the plant control room for plant status information immediately after being notified of an emergency classification level.
The data to be obtained are identified on the notification form utilized by both utility and Division of Public Health Services' procedures.
These data will be evaluated by State of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers to determine the advisability of precautionary actions. Accident assessment will be initiated at the State EOC and continued through the duration of an energency at both the State EOC and at the IFO/ EOF.
DPHS accident assessment personnel at the IFO/ EOF will receive firsthand projected dose data and field measurement data, assess the data with utility accident assessment personnel in conjunction with emergency management personnel, perform independent calculations of projected doses and formulate protective action recommendations to be conveyed to the State EOC where the public protective action recommendation
-9 i
l
decision will be made.
d.
Decisionmaking Criteria for Seasonal Beach Populations The protective action decision criteria discussed in NHRERP, Volume 1, modified Section 2.6.7, contain decision criteria designed for summer, seasonal populations, including seasonal beach populations.
These decision criteria incorporate considerations for precautionary actions for the summer, seasonal population based on the status and prognosis of plant conditions.
These provisions of the NHRERP represent a cautious approach to the implementation of the emergency planning requirements of 10 CFR 50.47(b) and guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.
1.
They are intended to remove the beach population before the potential for exposure beyond the PAGs exists.
To accomplish this, they are implemented based on plant status and conditions that may lead to a release as determined by accident assessment personnel of the utility and conveyed to State of New Hampshire decisionmakers.
The NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.5.2 advises accident assessment personnel that complete radiological assessment data may not be available or no release may yet be projected when they are considering early, pracautionary actions for the summer, seasonal population.
Therefore, the current plant status and a prognosis of anticipated plant conditions would be the best indicator of the need for precautionary actions.
Procedures contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, as.. -
modified, facilitate consideration of plant status and prognosis of plant conditions by providing for early reporting of plant status data by the utility emergency organization to State of New Hampshire emergency management and public health officials.
State of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers will consider implementation of precautionary measures as early as the Alert emergency classification level.
The description of Alert in NUREG-0654, Appendix 1, says in part:
Any releases (at this classification level are) expected to be limited to small fraction of the EPA Protective Action Guidance exposure levels.
At this classification level, no offsite action would be
]
ordinarily warranted to protect the public, but its consideration here affords additional time to clear the beaches or prevent additional public access to the beaches.
The decision criteria of the NHRERP are not intended to dictate automatic implementation of precautionary actions at this classification level.
They are intended to facilitate the exercise of judgment on the part of New Hampshire accident assessment personnel and decisionmakers as to the l
most prudent course of action given the particular I
circumstances of an accident situation.
The NHRERP, Revision 2, Volume 1, Section 2.6.7 is being updated to reference the emergency classification and plant I
conditions under which precautionary and protective action l ~
recommendations would be made (Attachment 2).
Figure 2.6-6 of the NHRERP, as modiflad, see Attachment 2, indicates that for these conditions during periods of summer, seasonal population, the recommended precautionary action would ha closure or evacuation of Hampton and Seabrook beachos.
The intent of this provision is the implementation of measures for the beach population at the first indication of a potential for offsite populations to be affected.
Under these conditions, any projected doses to the public would be expected to bo below the lowest v61ues of the EPA PAGs.
At the Site Area Emergency classification level, offsite protective actions would not be expected to be necessary to protect the public.
At thic classification level, however, the State will recommend precautionary or protective actions for the beach population.
The description of Site Area Emergency of NUREG-0654, Appendix 1 providos foundation for this decisionmaking concept where it says:
Any releases (are) not expected to exceed EPA Protective Action Guideline exposure levels except near site boundary.
The emergency classification levels are intended to be anticipatory in nature.
They are initiated by plant conditions that allow anticipation of later consequences if conditions are not mitigated.
Decisionmakers are thereby led to appropriate courses of action before offsite consequences are expected.
In summary, to reach a protective actior recommendation, the initial consideration is based on plant conditions.
If a recommendation is not made as a result of plant conditions, then piaojected doses will be calculated and compared to the PAGs.
2.
Implementation of Precautionary and Protective Actions for the Summer, Seasonal Population Actions prescribed for implementation of precautionary and protective actions for the public, and specifically for the seasonal beach population, are contained in appendices to both the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management and the Division of Public Health Services procedures (Volume 4, Appendix F and 'olume 4A, Appendix U as modified).
These procedures establish explicit actions for implementation of early, precautionary measures and protective actions for the Hampton and Seabrook beaches.
a.
Public Alert and Notification A key provision for initiation of protective actions is prompt notification of the public.
This is achieved by activation of a system of fixed sirens situated throughout the 17 New Hampshirc communities.
These sirens provide audible alert coverage of the New Hampshire EPZ communities.
For beach areas where precautionary actions may be recommended (i.e., Hampton and Seabrook beaches), sirens have been designated for potential activation in early stages of an emergency for the purpose of initiating precautionary actions.
Procedures are in place for these sirens to sound an alert signal and to broadcast a voice message in both _
English and French to advise beach populations of actions they should take.
Procedures provide for immediate (within 15 minutes of the State's decision) activation of the audible alert system by either Rockingham County Dispatch Center or as a backup, by the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook after precautionary or protective action decisions are made for beach areas.
Activation of the audible alect signal would be followed by a voice message over the siren public address system containing emergency instruction,s for the public.
The script of the voice message is:
"Attention.
Attention.
a Because of a problem at Seabro)k Station, the beaches are now closed.
Please leave the bear:h immediately.
Listen to a local radio station for more information."
(NHRERP, Vol. 16, pg. IV-18h; Vol. 18, pg. IV.26g.)
In addition to the audible alert system, a series of permanent signs which display emergency instructions will be posted in recreation areas, including on the beaches, throughout the EPZ.
Cur}ently 18 locations for placement of these signs have been it.entified in cooperation with the NH Department of Resources, and Economic Development.
The instructions explain wlat to do when sirens are heard and identify the emergency broadcast stations from which further information and instractions can be obtained.
This information is also etisplayed in both English and French.
Additional public information materials containing the same
- 14
information, again in both languages, will be available to transients at motels, hotels, and business establishments throughout the EPZ.
Emergency Broadcast System (EBS) messages would be broadcast at 15-minute intervals over radio stations identified on the public information signs and in other informational materials for transients.
The content of the EBS message would depend on the actions recommended by State of New Hampshire decisionmakers.
EBS messages containing instrbctions for the transient population, including transients without their own means of transportation, are presently being prepared.
b.
Precautionary Actions Precautionary actions planned for implementation for Hampton and Seabrook beaches are delineated in NHRERP, Volume 4,
Appendix F and Volume 4A, Appendix U as modified in.
(See also generally Appendix 1.)
Those actions pertain particularly to the beach areas in an approximate 2-mile radius of Seabrook Station, in other words, those areas that could potentially be most immediately affected.
This area is bounded by Great Boar's Head at Hampton Beach to the north and the New Hampshire-Massachusetts border at Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard at Seabrook Beach to the south.
(The procedures contained in NHRERP, Rev.
2, define the northern boundary of this area as Little Boar's Head which is in North Hampton.
The plan and procedures are being amended to identify this boundary as Great Boar's Head which is consistent with traffic control and public notification provisions for precautionary actions for the beach.)
Precautionary actions prescribed for this area are:
(1)
Closing beaches that attract seasonal populations and which are in close proximity to the plant; (2)
Implementation of traffic control to discourage transient traffic from flowing into the affected areas, including beach areas; (3)
Issuance of public announcements of actions taken through emergency broadcast and normal media channels; and (4)
Monitoring of traffic flow and local conditions in affected areas.
To facilitate implementation of these actions, the following arrangements have been made:
(1)
The Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED), which has jurisdiction over State beaches and parks, has been designated to assist with closing beaches and parks and adjacent parking areas under its control.
Procedures are in place for DRED to utilize lifeguards, park managers, and other available personnel for this purpose.
(2)
Specific traffic control points have been designated for State and local police to discourage access of transient traffic into beach areas and to facilitate egress of outgoing traffic.
These points are specified for implementation of early precautionary actions.
(3)
Procedures are in place at the Rockingham County Dispatch Center and in the RERPs for the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook for activation of public alert sirens and public announcements for the beaches.
Additionally, public information personnel at both the Media Center and the State EOC are activated at the Alert classification to issue public announcements to the media.
(4)
Utility, State and local emergency response organizations will be activated at the Alert Emergency classification level, to monitor conditions in the plant and in potentially affected areas.
c.
Evacuation As A Protective Action In the event that accident conditions preclude implementation of early precautionary neasures for the beach populations, evacuation continues to be the preferred response.
NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6, at page 2.6-11 says:
If all potential radiological exposure can be avoided by implementing a timely evacuation, evacuation may be the preferred protective action.
Where implementation of protective action is deemed appropriate, and where time and plant conditions permit, evacuation will generally be the selected course of action.
Numerous factors can influence the effectiveness of evacuation.
They include the delay time between accident warning and initiation of evacuation, the radius within which 17 -
a the public is evacuated, evacuation speed, and changing meteorological conditions during the evacuation.
Specific and detailed procedures are provided in the NHRERP to ensure early notification and evacuation of the beach population.
Administrative provision for and coordination of emergency instructions to be broadcast have been provided in NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.1, and Volume 4, NHCDA procedures, and Volume 4B, State Police Communications Center procedures to ensure the flexibility to get the most appropriate message aired in a timely manner for the spectrum of accident conditions.
The conditions covered by these provisions range from when the emergency organizations are fully staffed and are following a slowly developing situation to the case when a severe situation is developing rapidly prior to emergency organizations being able to fully staff or assess the situation.
d.
Shelter-in-Place (1)
General Considerations NHRERP, Volume 1, Section 2.6.5 sets forth the shelter-in-place concept on which New Hampshire relies as a protective action option.
The use of sheltering as a protective action for the beach population is dealt with in Appendix 1.
The shelter-in-place concept provides for sheltering at the location in which the sheltering instruction is received.
The NHRERP, Voluma 1, at page 2.6-6 explains this to mean:
f Those at home are to shelter at home, those at work or school are to shelter in the work place or school building.
Transients located indoors or in private homes will be asked to shelter at the locations they are visiting if this is feasible.
Transients without access to an indoor location will be advised to evacuate as quickly as possible in their own vehicles (i.e., the vehicles in which they arrived).
Beach closure or evacuation of the beach areas are the preferred courses of action for the beach population.
Sheltering as a protective action option for this segment of the population would be considered in only a very limited number of circumstances characterized by one or more of the following conditions as described on pp. 7-8 of Appendix 1:
1.
Dose Savings Sheltering could be recommended when it would be the most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction.
New Hampshire has chosen to base its protective action decision on the lowest values cited by EPA guidance, that is 1 rem whole body dose and 5 rem thyroid dose.
The protective action guidelines contained in EPA 520/1-75-001, Manual of Protective Action Guides for Nuclear Incidents, Revised 1980, have been adopted in the protective action procedures of Appendix F and Appendix U.
2.
Consideration of Local Conditions The protective action recommendation procedure of the NHRERP ((modified) Appendix F, Volume 4 and Appendix U, Volume 4A) considers impediments to evacuation when cvacuation is the result of the detailed evaluation utilized in the decision-making process.
3.
Transients Without Transportation When evacuation is the recommended protective action for the beach population, certain transients may be without their own means of transportation.
Shelter will be recommended for this category of -.
transients to ensure they have recourse to some protection while awaiting transportation assistance.
For implementation of this protective action option under any of the three conditions, New Hampshire decisionmakers will rely on the mechanisms now in place, or to be put in place, in the NHRERP for recommending shelter to the public whether on the beach or any place else.
These mechanisms include rapid assessment of accident conditions; activation of the public alert system, which include the beach public address system; and EBS announcements.
It is expected that people will comply with EBS announcements to take shelter and that owners / operators of public access facilities will make their facilities available for this very limited purpose.
(2)
Transients Without Transportation When evacuation is the recommended protective action for the beach population, certain transients may be without their own means of transportation.
Their number is estimated at 2%
of the peak beach population, as set forth in NHRERP, Volume 6, page 2-in.
Recent estimates of the peak beach population for Hampton and Seabrook were made using the results of vehicle occupancy rate surveys and counts of projected peak number of vehicles.
The summer weekend peak population estimates calculated 23,841 for Hampton Beach South and 7,398 for Seabrook Beach.
Using the 2% estimate and the peak population figures yields estimates of peak numbers of _.. _,___
transients without transportation of 477 at Hampton Beach and 148 at Seabrook Beach.
These are considered to be peak numbers because they do not take into account ride sharing which FEMA's Regional Assistance Committee advises is a significant factor in estimating transportation resource requirements.
With ride sharing considered, it is believed that more than enough capacity exists for all transients without their own transportation.
However, bus routes have been planned and sufficient bus resources identified to provide transportation for persons in the beach areas including summer transients who may lack their own.
The NHRERP is being amended to provide protection to the transients while they are awaiting transportation assistance.
The NHRERP will identify potential shelter locations for the transient beach population without transportation.
The shelter study referenced in Section (3), infra, was provided to the State as a resource document.
In its review, the State found the document to be of some value.
It identified a large number of shelters that may serve as a pool from which public shelter choices will be made.
The appropriate EBS message will be modified to provide for instructions to persons on the beach who have no means of transportation to go to public shelters to await assistance in the event evacuation of the beach is recommended.
Appendix 1, pg. 10.
(3)
Stone & Webster Shelter Study, Augast 1987 "A Study to Identify Potential Shelters in the Beach Areas Near Seabrook Station August, 1987," was performed for New Hampshire Yankee by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation.
This study was performed to identify and approximate sheltering capacities that appear to be suitable for use by the beach population along the Massachusetts and New Hampshire EPZ coastlines.
This study is provided as Applicants' prefiled Exhibit 2.
An analysis of this study has been performed by New Hampshire Yankee and is provided as.
The State of New Hampshire does not intend at this time to incorporate the August, 1987 Stone & Webster Shelter Study or the analysis of this study into the NHRERP nor rely on the shelter study as a planning basis.
As a compilation of available resources, the shelter study may be used to assist in identifying those public buildings to which beach transients without their own means of transportation may be directed for shelter while awaiting transportation assistance.
3.
Implementation of Protective Actions for Campgrounds Specific plans for special facilities within the Seabrook Station EPZ are contained in appendices to the local i
plans of the NHRERP, Volumes 16 - 32.
These appendices are labeled Appendix F of Volumes 16 - 32.
Appdndix F includes plans for campgrounds located in the respective municipalities.
The plans identify the campgrounds to which they pertain and contain descriptive information about the i
_ ~ _ _ _
f campgrounds.
They also explain the method of notification and the actions to be taken.
a.
Notification All campgrounds in the New Hampshire portion of the EPZ are covered by the system of fixed sirens.
As a supplement to the sirens, campgrounds will be offered tone-alert radios which will enhble proprietors or managers to be advised of any protective measures recommended for the public.
The tone-alert radios are activated by the EBS radio signal over which emergency instructions will be transmitted.
A supply of public information materials, including posters and brochures, will be provided to all campgrounds; and the plans call for campground operators to ensure that public information materials containing emergency instructions are available for users of their facilities.
Therefore, there are two methods of notification.
One is the siren signal.
Second, the operators will be alerted by tone-alert radios which provide notification and emergency instructions.
b.
Actions The campground plans provide that at a Site Area or General Emergency, campgrounds may be directed to undertake a protective response or to close on a precautionary basis.
If the facility is advised to close as a precaution or if there is a sheltering recommendation announced for any part of the ____
EPZ, campground operators would instruct campers to leave the area.
If an evacuation is recommended in any part of the EPZ, campground operators would make an accounting of all current users of the campground and instruct campers to evacuate the area by evacuation routes specified in the campground plan.
The total maximum capacity of campgrounds in the Seabrook Station EPZ is approximately 8500 campers.
This maximum capacity of campground users is distributed over a total of 1889 camp sites in 18 campgrounds situated within 11 of the 17 municipalities of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
- Thus, campground users constitute neither a significantly large number nor an inordinate concentration of persons in any one area of the EPZ.
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that campground users would be able to depart the area rapidly whether this was to occur prior to an evacuation of the general population or during such an evacuation.
Maximum total vehicle capacity of campgrounds is approximately 2950, or 1 vehicle for every 2.9 campers.
Five of these campgrounds are day and youth camps for which nineteen buses have been allocated.
Consequently, there is ample vehicle capacity for campground users to depart from the area.
4.
Sheltering for the General Public a.
Concept of Shelter-in-Place As explained previously, New Hampshire employs the shelter-in-place concept as a protectivo action option for the general public.
This concept provides for short-term sheltering at the location in which the sheltering instruction is received.
Those at home are to shelter at home, those at work or school are to be sheltered in the work place or school building.
Except for institutionalized populations, sheltering and evacuation will be implemented on a municipality by municipality basis in New Hampshire.
One town may be advised to take shelter, while an abutting town is advised to evacuate or take no protective action.
Therefore, shelter areas in New Hampshire are defined as municipalities.
The decision to implement sheltering or evacuation of a particular municipality in the EPZ would be based on a prediction that projected doses to the general population would equal or exceed EPA PAGs for these areas.
b.
Assessment of Existing Shelter Adequacy The NHRERP, Volume 1, Table 2.6-4 provides representative values of cloud dose reduction factors for typical structures that can be found in the Seabrook Station EPZ.
On the basis of these values, New Hampshire decisionmakers can approximate the level of protection that would be afforded to the population by a protective action recommendation to shelter.
The values range from 0.2 or less (80% protection) for large office or industrial type buildings to 0.9 (10% protection) for wood-frame houses with no basements.
Based on the documents, Structure Shieldina -. _.. _ _
from Cloud and Fallout Gamma Ray Sources for Assessina the L
Consecuences of Reactor Accidents, EG&G, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, EGG-1183-1670 (1975) and Public Protection Stratecies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents:
Shelterina Concents With Existina Public and Private Shelters by Aldrich, et al.,
February 1978, and their analysis of typical structures to be found in the Northeast region of the United States, Seabrook Station EPZ structures have a cloud dose reduction factor of at least 0.9; and this is, therefore, a reasonable dose reduction factor to be assumed by the NHRERP.
As an assumed dose reduction factor, New Hampshire decisionmakers would apply this factor to calculations of projected doses to determine the level of protection that would be provided by implementation of sheltering.
The only exceptions to this rule are certain institutions, including hospitals, nursing homes, and correctional facilities, where risks from evacuation are higher than that for the general population.
For these institutions, shielding factors of the individual l
structures have been determined and would be applied to calculation of projected doses to the resident populations i
according to instructions contained in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U.
(1)
Shelter Effectiveness of Residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ Because of their location in the Northeast region of the United States, year-round residences in the Seabrook Station EPZ residences can be expected to consist of substantial.
1
construction materials and to be of airtight construction.
Essentially any indoor location, even a wood-frame house with no basement, provides at least a 10% reduction for a cloud source.
This assessment of the relativo shelter effectiveness of structures in the Seabrook Station EPZ indicates that typical residential structures afford a cloud shielding factor of at least 0.9.
(2)
Shelter Effectiveness of Schools and Day Care Centers It is reasonable to assume that schools and day care centers share the prevailing characteristics of typical structures of the Seabrook Station EPZ, and are airtight, winterized structures.
Further, because protective action recommendations for the general population are applied to schools and day care centers, evaluation of protection afforded by these structures would neither make them more suitable for sheltering, nor affect the choice of the sheltering option.
Specific protective action recommendations would not be made for schools (which, for the purpose of the plan, include day care centers) based on the relative sheltering factors of their structures.
The NHRERP explicitly says in NHRERP, Volume 4A, Appendix U that sheltering factors other than 0.9 are not to be considered for school facilities.
Schools (and day care centers) will follow the same protective actions prescribed for the general population. (
b
Appandix 1, Pago 1 of 47 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ph
....r............
.(f f y stat. Cm.e e.tk South I
5 i o r ei.....i sir...
/
Concert. New M.mpsNro 03301 603/271 2231 JOHN H. sUNUNU t.400 452 3792 Gewner RICHARo H. sTRCME O'ecar JAMES A. s AGG;oTEs c.uy c-ece.
February 11, 1988 Mr. Henry G. Vickers Regional Administrator Federal Emergency Management Agency 422 McCormack Post Office Boston, MA 02109
Dear Mr. Vickers:
In the Sucolemental Testimony of Dave McLouchlin, Edward A. Thomas and William R. Cummino on Behalf of the Federal Emercency Manacement Acency on Shelterina/ Beach Pocolation Issues, filed on January 25, 1983, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) stated its current position with respect to its review of selected portions of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP). FEMA summarized its position as follows:
Briefly put, FEMA's position is (a) that it is appropriate to consider further the adequacy of the emergency response plan for the transient population of the beaches within the Seabrook Emergency F'anning Zone (EPZ) during the summer, that is, from May 15 to September 15, as indicated in the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP); (b) that the requirement of NUREG 0654/ FEMA REP 1, Rev. 1, for a "range of protective actions" may or may not be satisfied by evacuation alone; (c) that FEMA cannot concluce that the t4RERP is adequate with respect to that beach population until it is clear that the State of New Hampshire has considered the use of sneltering for the transient beach population and explains what use, if any, it intends to make of sheltering. This latter point should not be interpreted to mean that FEMA has imposed a requirement that sheltering be available.
If the State of New Hampshire intends not to employ sheltering for the transient beach population (which is not presently clear from the NHRERP), then FEMA expects the State to develop the rationale for such a choice and provide it to FEMA for review.
Appendix 1, Page 2 of 47 i
i During the January 28, 1988 conference call among the parties in the Seabrook Operatirg License Proceeding, the State of New Hampshire indicated that it would respond, within two weeks, to the concerns raised by FEMA in its supplemental testimony.
The State's response to FEMA's quastionr about protective actions for the Seabrook EPZ beach population is ?"'. forth in the accompanying enclosure.
New Hampshire SopreOlates the Coments and assistance provided by FEMA relative to tnc New Hampshire Sheltering policy. We believe the enclosed material addresses the concerns raised and we welcome the continued opportunity to work in concert with FEYA in developing quality emergency plans for the people of New Hampshire.
Sincerely,f
_>17 h "_,
RYehardH.Strome Director RHS/!NN/cj f Seabrook Operating License Proceedings Service List ec:
78648
Appendix 1, Page 3 of 47 New Hamoshire Resconse 6.o FEMA Succlemental Testimc.3y At Volume 1, Section 2.6, the plan addresses "protective response." The plan explains that the objective of protective responses by tne State is "...
to control the radiological exposules to which the puolic may ce suojected in the event of a significant release of radiological materials from a fixed nuclear facility." The section explains that there are various radiation exposure pathways, ano outlines tne federal protective action guides (PAGs) for both plume exposure EPZs and ingestion pathway EPZs. At Section 2.6.5, the plan outlines tne specific protective actions acopted by the State for reducing direct exposure of the public within the plume exposure EPZ.
New Hampshire will rely on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general public within the Plume Exposure EPZ. These are sheltering and evacuation. Either of these protective actions will be coupled with access control to prevent unauthorized entry into the area in which the protective action is being implemented.
(NHRERP Vol 1. p. 2.6-4)
Tnis general statement of policy was drafted to be the basis of State policy for either of the two nuclear power plants with plume exposure EPZs within the State. It should not be inferred from this statement of policy, however, tnat sheltering is afforded the same weignt as evacuation as a means l
to effect dose savings. Subsequent portions of the plan describe the relative merits of the two protective actions and describes the rationale and procedures for choosing protective actions. Sheltering is a protective action of limited usefulness in realizing dose savings for the population, regardless of the season, For a limited range of conditions, however, the protective acticn of sheltering is not without benefits.
Appendix 2, Page 4 of 47 Sheltering is a valuaale protective response for several reasons.
It can be implemented culckly, usually in a matter of minutes.
In addition, it is less expensive and less disruptive of normal activities tnan evacuation.
Implementation and management of sheltering is also less demanding on the resources of the emergency response o!ganization since no vehicles, traffic control and dispatching of equipped emergency worXers is required.
(tMRERo, Rev. 2, vol. 1 at p. 2.6-5)
To make sure sheltering is fast and easily managed, as tnis stateme :
intenes, the State has adopted a specific Sheltering concept.
"New Hampshire employs the '$nelter-in Place' Concept. Tnis provices for sneltering at the location in ahlen the sneltering instructicn is received.
Those at home are to shelter at home; those at wor < or scnoal are to De sneltered in tne wor < place or school cuilcing.
Transients located indoors or in private homes will be asked to shelter at the locations they are visiting if tnis is feasicle.
TransisHts without access to an incoor location aill oe advised to evacuate as quickly as possicle in tneir can vehicles (i.e., the vehicles in wnich tney arrived). Departing transients will ce advised to close the windons of their vehicles and use recirculating air until they have cleared the area suoject to radiation.
If necessary, transients without transportation may seek directions to a nearoy puolic ouilding from local emergency workers.
(NHRERP Vol 1. p. 2.6-6)
Implicit in adopting this position are tnree key factors. First, the State wanted a sheltering concept that was uncomplicated and manageaole. The shelter-in-place concept meets this criterion. Second, the State wanted a j
sheltering concept that it could rely upon to be implemented qJickly.
The shelter-in-place Concept meets this Criterion; a sheltering concept that requires the movement of people to a remote snelter location may not.
- Third, the State feels that if a release of radiation warranted movement of the l
public, tney are much more likely to te afforded me::,ningful dose reductions by moving out of the EPZ than by rroving to a snelter within the EPZ.
Tnis is the case since the memcers of the puolic would oe, in effect, "evacuating" to a shelter. This action would require forming family groups or social units prior to moving, ceciding whether to seek shelter or evacuate spontaneously, choosing a mode of transportation (i.e., walk or ride), seeking a destination (i.e., home or shelter), and undertaking the physical movement. -
Appendix 1, Page 5 of 47 Furthermore, since sheltering is a temporary protective action, those that sought public shelter would be faced with the prospect of assuming some dose while seeking shelter, more wnile sheltering, and even more during a subsequent evacuation. Such considerations dissuade the state from considering the movement of large numoers of people to public snelters as a primary protective action for beacn transients, given tnat evacuation is seen as providing dose savings in nearly all accident scenarios.
Inis position does not precluce the State from considering and selecting sheltering as a protective action for tne beach population. Nevertneless, evacuation is a much more likely protective action decision during tne summer s
months when some Death transients cannot shelter in place, but must leave or move to public shelters.
Tnrough the RAC review process, FEMA made it known to the State tnat it was concerned about a shelter-in-place concept that could, in fact, result in a hasty evacuation of the transient beach population shortly before, or during, a release. For example, the FEMA technical review comments on the Decemoer 1934 draft of the NKRERP contained the following comment regarding the beach population:
Early access control and ceach instructions may have to be implemented, and this must be considered in advance both in terms of protective action decision making and public notification of such.
At FEMA's suggestion, the State, in Revision 0 to the NKRERP, acopted additional means for addressing this concern.
Those means consist of closing or evacuating the beaches and establishing access control as early B
"precautionary actions." The precautionary action process is a detailed
-3
Appendix 1, Pa e 6 of 47 procedure used oy decision rakers from May 15 through Septemcer 15, the conths in which there is potential for a significant beach population. The procedure advises decision rakers to close the ceaches during Alert or close or evacuate the beaches during Site Area Emergency conditions oefore protective action This would mean that the ceacn population would considerations are warrantec.
Tne be gone Defore an evacuation / shelter decision became ne:essary.
availability of the precautionary action procedure is cited in Section 2.6.5 of the plan:
"The conoitions under which such an action cay oe taken are descrioed in NKRERP Vol. A raC0A Procedures, Appendix F."
Attachment I).
A copy of tne precautionary action procedure is attacned. (See:
The addition of these precautionary measures alleviates ecst concerns about sheltering the beach population. Tne State's position is based, in part, upon the RAC evaluation of the State Response to the RAC review of NHRERP Rev. 2.
At page 64/134, the RAC evaluation stated:
According to the State response and the plan revisions, the use of public Tne only shelters is not proposed during a Seacrook Station emergency.
exception is the possible use of public buildings for snelters for Transients with transportation and transients without transportation.
'without access to an indoor location' will be advised to evacuate in The use of public buildings or sheltering of their own venicles.
transients without transportation is acceptable since the transients without trsnsportation are expected to be a very small numoer.
l These precautionary actions and the State emphasis on getting tne population out early are consistent with actions planned at other nuclear power plant sites with transient populations.
1 4
Appendix 1, Page 7 of 47 Once a General Emergency is declared, State of New Hampshire decisien makers begin a detailed evaluation of the protective actions to be recombended. Since the General Emergency as defined by NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1 is a condition where "releases can be reasonably expected to exceed EPA Protective Action Guideline exposure levels for more than the immediate site area," it is at this point that relative cose savings between evacuation anc sheltering are evaluated in accorcance witn the protective action cecision criteria of NHRER? Volume 4 Appendix F and Volume AA Apcendix U for tne general population including the beach population.
For the aforementioned reasons, it is the State's position that evacuetion is the protective response that would ce used in responsc to the majority of emergency scenarios at Seacrook, and that the protective action of sheltering may be preferaole to evacuation in only a very limiteo numcer of accident scenarios.
Tne State is currently prepared to recommend implementation of its snelter-in-place concept at either of the two plume exposure EP2's in New Hampshire.
Tne snelter-in-place advisory will normally be issued, for either EPZ, only under scenarios that are characterized oy one or more of the following three conditions:
1.
Dose Savings Sheltering could be recommended wnen it would be the more effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction. New Hampshire has cnosen to base its protective action decisions on the lowest values cited oy EPA guidance, tnat is 1 rem whole body dose and 5 rem tnyroid cose.
The protective action guidelines contained in EPA 520/1-75-001, Manual of Protective Action Guides for Nuclear Incidents, Revised 1980, have been adopted in the protective action precedures of I
Appendix F and Appendix U..-
Appendix 1, Page 8 of 47 i
2.
Consideration of Local Conditions Tne protective action recomendation procedure of the fMRERP (Appendix F, Vol. A and Appendix U, Vol. 4A) considers impediments to evacuation when evacuation is the result of the detailed evaluation utilized in the decision making process.
3.
Transients Without Transportation When eva0uation is the recommended prott.0tive action for the Ceach population, certain transients may be wit 90ut their own means of transportation. Shelter will De provided for tnis category of transients to ensure they have recourse to some prote0 tion while awaiting transportation assistance.
A major reason for the State's reliance on evacuation is the recognition that, during the sum er months, the large transient oeacn populati0n potentially present constrains the use of the shelter-in-place option as a means of achieving dose savings for that segment of the entire p0pulation.
Many of tne beacn transients are day trippers witnout ready a: cess to a residence for sheltering as envisioned in tne shelter-in-place concept.
The adoption of early Desch closings and the precautionary action of beach evacuations (and their attendant access control to stop the influx of beach gcers) is intended by the State to minimize the population tnat could be subject to poss1Dle protective actions at a later time.
Tne State plans to continue its use of the shelter-in-place concept.
It continues to assume that the shelter-in-place concept can be augmented. It can be augmented by the precautionary beach closures, and it can be augmented by retaining the ability to use some public shelters if a need to shelter transients without transportation occurs.
t 6-l
Appendix 1, Page 9 of 47 The utility has Sponsored a beach area Shelter Study undertaken by Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation.
This study was provi:ed to the State as a resource document. In its review, the State found the d::Ument to be of some value.
It identified a large number of snelters that may serve as a pool from wnich puolic shelter choices will be nade. Based upon its revlea of the Shelter Study, the State is confident that unforeseen demand for snelter can be met provided that the ilmits of usefulness inherent in any shelter (e.g.,
sneltering fact:rs, weatnerization, capacity, etc.) are consideteo in tne decision-making process.
When evacuation is the recommended protective action for the ce30h population, certain transients may oe witnout their can means of transportation. An estimate of the nu"cer of Dea:n transients who may not have their own transportation is 2% of the peak beach population, as set fortn in NHRERP, Volume 6, page 2-1 n.
The State agrees with the RAC's advice to consider ride sharing as a significant factor in estimating transportation resource requirements, and believes that sufficient rice sharing capacity exists for transients without their own transportation. In addition, ous routes have been planned and bus resources identified to pt vide transportation for persons in the ceach areas who may lack tneir can.
Honever, there is a concern that some mechanism oe provided for this category of transients to ensure they have some protection while awaiting transportation assistance.
Using the 24 estimate and the 1987 peak population figures cerived by KLD for the beach areas of concern, the number of transients without transportation might be as hign as 480 in Hampton Beach ar.d 150 in Sea:: rook 1
Appendix 1, Page 10 of 47 Beacn. On the basis of the Shelter Study, there is capacity in existing buildings at Hampton Beach and Seabrook Seach to shelter those transportation-dependent transients at the beach until transportation assistance is made available.
We prepose to amend the plan to identify potential shelter 10 cations for the transient ceach population without transportation. The a;;pr0priate E65 message will be m0dified to provide 'for instructions to persons on the bea:n who have no raeans of transportation to go to public shelters to await assistance in tne event evacuation of the bea:n is recommendeo.
In its introduction, NUREG 0654 FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 criterion J. Protective Response suggests tnat emergency planning should ensure that:
A range of protective actions have been developed for the plume exposure pathday EPZ for emergency workers and the puclic. Guidelines for the enoice of protective actions during an emergency, consistent with federal guidance, are develcped and in place...
As previously explained, the State has cevelopeo coth evacuation and sheltering options for prote0 ting the public. Either of these options may be I
coupled with access control.
The iMER? States that either of these protective actions "... will be implemented on a municipality-by-municipality basis." (IM ERP Vol 1.p. 2.6-11) Furthermore,
(
l the range of protective 80tions available to the State is expanded by three special consicerations. One is specific consideration given to special facilities:
For institutionalized populations (including those in hospitals, nursing homes and jails), a more detailed evaluation of protective action recommendations is undertaken cased upon facility-specific Sheltering protection factors. Sheltering in place will normally be the preferred 8
Appendix 1, Page 11 of 47 protective action for institutional facilities, the nature of which require that the implementation of protective actions, particularly evacuation, be considered very carefully with respect to ass 0ciated risks and derived benefits. Tne a:tual dose criteria (PAGS) utill:ed in ch0osing betaeen sheltering and evacuation will ce the same for tne general population and institutionali:ed incivicuals.
(NnRERP vol. 1, p.
2.6 7)
A second special consideration is tne potential precautionary action of closing or early evacuation of beacnes cefore protective a:tions are necessary. A third s ecial consideration is tne State's ability to uncerta<a additional protective responses, inclucing using puoli: snelters for tne transient population without transportation. Tcgether, tnese var 10us options provide New Hampshire with a oroad range of protective acti0ns fica whicn to Choose.
I Tne State also believes that its casis for selecting protective actions is sound. The basis is described in NHRERP Rev. 2 Vol. 1 Section 2.6.7 Criteri3 for Selectino Protective Actions for Direct Exoosure Within tne Plume Exoosure EPZ (p. 2.6-24).
Since F6MA has founo these criteria to fall short of being clear, however, the State has attempted some draft clarifications to key elements of tne protective action decision criteria. The draft revisions are attached. (See: Attachment 2). Should FEMA find these craft improvements remove its doubts aoout the process for Selecting protective actions, the Strte is prepared to adopt them as ple.n changes.
In using the procedure as modifieo, decision makers are cirected to Figure 1A of the procedure to consider factors related to the actual or potential radiological release. These variables are cerived from the guicance of EPA 520/1-78-001B. Considered specifically are: the time to release, time of plume arrival at a spe:ified location, time of exposure at the refereme location, projected dose, EPA PACS, evacuation times, ano shelter dose r
9
Appendix 1, Pago 12 of 47 reduction factors. At the General Emergency classification, the evaluation is first performed for the area of most immediate concern, that is within about two (2) miles of the plant. After the raciological consequences are evaluated, a recommendation will be reached.
i It is at this point that the local conditions that may affect the 4
recommendation are considered. Tnese conditions are descriced in Attachment 0 to Appendix F, Vol. 4, NKRERP, and includas local meteorolcgical conditions, concitions of the local read network, and any natural or manmade impediments to evacuation.
Once the evaluation process is completed, a recommendation to the public will be made by decision makers.
It must be noted that the procedures will I
caution decision makers that if precautionary closure or evacuation of the beacnes has been recommended, then such measures must continue to be the recommended protective action.
l i
i
, i 78633
Appendix 1, Paga 13 of 47
.?.*
(
ATTACIOtENT I A ?ENDIX F FROTECTIVE ACTICN CECISICH CRITERIA i
i; t
i l
l l
l l
l l
l
.'E v,
Vol. 4 Rev. 2 8/85
~-
l l
Appendix 1, Page 14 of 47 STATE GF NEW HAMPSHIRE T
3 c
PROTECTIVE ACTI0tl CECISICfl CRITERIA I.
Purccse This appendix establishes criteria and guidance to facilitate prote.ctive action decisions for the general pcpulation within the PlcT.a Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Seabreck Station. Criceria and guidance fer protective action decisions are also provided for certain spe-ciel pcpula'tiens and for surmer populations.
II. Resconsibility
~
A.
Accident assessment persennel of the Division of Public Health Services are respcnsible for impler.enting parts III. A. and III.S. of this appendix.
5 B.
.Decisien making personnel of the Governor's office, The flew HaTpshire Civil Defense Agency, and the Division of Public Health Services are responsible fer irmlementing decision guidance contained in Part IV cf this appendix.
III. Pretective Action Decisions for General Population r
A.
Use of Protective Action Recermendation Werkeheet fer General Pcpulatica 1.
1.
Obtain a copy of Figure 1A, Protective Action Rec:mr.endation Worksheet for General Pcpulation.
2.
Using information frcm the nuclear facility cperator, IFO per-sonnel will comlete a wrksheet for each distance of interest.
Y[-
Vol. 4 F-1 Rev. 2 8/86
- -~_ -.
/
Appendix 1, Page'15 of 47 3.
Report the results of the cvaluation to the OPHS IFO Coordinatcr_and the NHCOA EOF Liaison.
B.
Additional Consicerations for Special Facilitics with Significant Shielding Characteristics
.1. '
Cbtain a ccpy of Figure 18, Special Facility Protective Action ucrksheet.
2.
Complete the worksheet.
i 3.
Repcrt the results of ;he evaluation to the CFhS IFO Ct.rdinatcr and the NHC0A EOF Liaison.
CAUTIOtl SPECIAL-FACILITY SHELTERING FACTORS LISTED Ctl FIGURE 5 arc. NOT TO BE CCNSICEREO FCR SCHOOL FACILITIES.
2 SCHOOLS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME PROTECTIVE ACTIONS PRESCRISED FOR THE GEf:ERAL FOPULATION.
C.
Plant Systern Considerations fcr early protective action decision making in the event of a fast mcving incident are contained in Attachrrent A.
O.
Potential offsite constraints to be considered in detemining action E
time fer implementation of protective acticns are contained in Attactrnent C.
?
IV. Protective Action Decision fd.aking for_ Seasonal Beach Populations A.
General Considerations 1.
Precautionary actions affecting seasonal beach populations may be wairanted at an early stage of an erergency before protec-tive actions for the general population are warranted.
2.
Radiological assessment data may not be available or useful when considering early precautionary action decisiens for seasonal beach populations.
Vol. 4 F-2 Rev. 2 d/86
,e___
.,__,,._,_.4_,_.,.,
,w%_.._,....,,___,,.___,,,.m.m._,
___,_,___.s_,..
m
,_r,
...,._...y,
Appendix 1, Page 16 of 47 3.
Prognosis of detericrating plant conditions may carpel-imple-mentation of precautionary actions,-without consideration of PAG ranges, when seasonal beach populations are potentially.
effected. Pertinent plant systen considerations are indicated in Attachment A.
4.
Precautionary actions for seasonal beach popula:icns would include:
a.
Clcsing beaches and other recreational facilities that attract saascnal populations and whien are in clcse proxi-mity to the plant, i.e. within an appecximate 2 mile
- radius, b.
Implenentation of access and traffic centrol at roadway points leading to these affected areas to menitor traffic and to advise pecple of actions taken.
c.
Issuance of public announcerents of acticns taken through
.acrmal tradia channels.
d.
Continued monitoring of tra#fic flow and local conditions in affected erees.
CAUTION s
PRECAUTIONARY ACTICtlS SHOULO EE CCriSIDERED FOR THE PERICO MAY 15 ThEOUGH SEPTEMEER '5.
8.
Precautionary and Protective Actions by Emergency Classification Level 1.
Alert a.
Initiating Ccnditions Vol 4.
F-3 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 17 of'47
-(1) Wind direction is toward the beach (frcm 2000 to
.00UI 2
(2) Plant conditions as detemined-by plant personnel indicate that a majcr plant systen is unstable er degrading, b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Rescurces and Economic Developtant (CRED) to clcse beacnes and state park areas in Hamoten Seach and in Ssacrcck Eeach between Little Scars Head Avenue to the Ncrta anc Reute 255 (NH/PA bcrder) to the South.
Recomend that the Tcwns of Harpten and Seatrcck c1cse any town-supervised besches in ccncurrence with the state's cecisicn.
(2) Advise OREO to implement special patrols to advise beach and state park populations of clcsing and to assure that beaches and parks are cleared.
(?) Request Rockinghan County Dispatch Center to activate the Public Alert and Notificatien Systsm along the beeches in Harpton and Seabrock to announce the clo-sings.
(4) Cecrtinate witn State Police irrpletentation of access 2
i centrol (i.e., to facilitate movetent of departing traffic and to control inecming traffic) at the follcwing locations:
(a) Intersection of Routes 51 and I-95 (c1cse exit 2) 2 (b) Intersection of Routes 107 and I-95 (close exit 1)
Vol. 4 F-4 Rev. 2 8/85
Appendix 1,.Page118-of 47
~
(5) Advise.Hampton Police Deparbtent to establish traffic-control points at:
(a) Intersection of, Routes 31 and U.S. 1
'(b) Ocean Boulevard (Route 1A) and Reute 51 (c) Landing Road and Reute 51 (d) Other traffic centrol points within Harpten as deemed necessary to facilitate tna flew of traffic.
(e) If required,-the NH' State Police will establish these traffic control points.
(5) Advise Seabreck Police Departcent to establish traffic control points at:
((
(a) Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S.1 (b)- Ocean Eauleverd (Route 1A and Reute 2SS)
(c) hashingten Road and Route 286 (d) Other traffic control points within Seabrook as desned necessary to facilitate the ficw of traffi:.
(e)
If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
NOTE:
Seabrock Police Department should request Salisbury, Massachusetts Police Department to establish traffic control at Lafayette Road and Route 285.
2
.$J Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 19 of.47 (7) Issue the following news release thrcugh the Media
['
Center at Newington Tcwn Hall: THERE HAS EEEN AN ALERT CECLARED AT TFE SEAEROCK STATICN. AS A PRECAUTION, THE STATE OF NEW HAPPSHIRE HAS CLOSE0 SEACH AND STATE FARK AREAS IN HAPPTON EEACH AND IN SEASRCCK SEACH. PRECAUTIONARY ACTICNS INCLUCE RESTRICTING ACCESS TO SEAEROCK EEACH AND HN'PTCN EEACH. THERE IS TO REASCN FOR TFE PU5LIC TO TAKE ANY FURTHER ACTIONS AT THIS TIME.
, 2.
Site Area Emergency with Stable Plant' Conditions a.
Initiating Conditions (1) Wind direction is tcsard the beach (2000 to 3:00).
(2) Plant conditions are stable without indication of further degradatien.
b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Rescurces and Econernic Development (OREO) to close beaches and state park areas in Hanpton Beech and in Seabreck Essen between Little Scars Head Avance to the North and Route 285 to the Scuth.
Recommend that the towns of Ha pten end Seabrook clcse -
any town-supervised beaches in concurrence with tne state's de!cisien.
(2) Mvise DREO to imolanent special patrols to assure beaches and parks in these areas are cleared.
(3) Request Rockingham County Dispatch Center tt, activate the Public Alert and Notification System along the beaches in Hampton and Seabrock to anncunce the clo-sings.
(4) Cocedinate with State Police implenentation of access 2
control and to restrict access en the part of non-residents to Hanpton Beach and to Seabrock Beach frcrn 1.
q:".. ~.
the folicwing locations:
Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page'20 of 47 (a) -Intersection of Routes 51 and I-95 (close exit 2)
(b) -Intersection of Routes 107 and I-95 (clcse exit 1)
(51' Advise Harpton Police Deparbnent to establish traffic control points and to restrict access en the part of non-residents to Hampton Beach at *the following _ leca-tiens:
'(a)
Intersection of Routes 51 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Eculevard (Reute 1A) and Route 51 (c) Landing Road and Route 51 l
(d) Ocean Eculevard at Hampton Harecr Eridge (clcse bridge to ingressing traffic)
(e) Other traffic control points within Har.pton as deemed necesscry to facilitate fica of traffic.
(f) If-required, the t1H State Police will establish-thase traffic centrol points.
(0) Aoviae Seabrcok Police Deparbnent to establish traffic control points and to restrict access en the part of non-residents to Seabrcok Beach at the following loca-tions:
(a)
Intersection cf Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Eculevard (Reute 1A) and Route 285 l,
Vol. 4 F-7 Rev. 2 8/86 I
i l
Appendix 1, Page 21 of 47 (c) Washir.gton Road and Route 286.
. :. 7 Li'
'(d)~ All other traffic control points within Seatrock
- as deemed necessary to facilitate the flow cf traffic.
2 (e) If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
NOTE:
Advise Seabrock Police to request the Salisbury Massachusetts Police Department to restrict access on the part of non-residents to Route 255 fran Route 1.
(7) Prepare the apprcpriate EBS Message, in acccrdance with Appendix G, for release.
(8) Authcrize activation of Nes Hanpshire EPZ sirens.
2 (9) Provide ESS message to Media Center at Newington Town Hall.
3.
Site Area 8:ergency with Degrading Plant Cenoitions a.
Initiating Conditions (1) All meteerclogical cencitions (2) Pregnosis of plant status. indicates degradation of e j
mejor plant systen, b.
Actions (1) Advise lucal EOCs and Feistchusetts EOC of Governcr's declaration of state of energency.
(2) Reconnend evacuaticn of general public of Hampton Beach and Seebrcck Eeach fran Ocean Eculevard and Little Boars Head to the North and Ocean Boulevard and Route 285 to the South. Advise EOCs of Seabrcok, Hanpton, and Hamton Falls.
(3) Advise State Police to establish access control points for 2 mile radius. See Attachnent 8.
Vol. 4 F-8 Rev. 2 8/86
s
-Appendix 1,'Page.22 of 47 1
(4) Advise-Mampton Police Department to establish traffic control points and to restrict entry to Har.pten Eeach JE' at the following locations:
(a)
Intersecticn of Routes 51 and U.S. - 1
.(o) Ocean Eculevard (Reute 1A) ar.d Route 51 (c) Route 51 and Landing Road (d) Ocean Eculevard at Hampten Harcer Eridge-(c1cse bridge to departing and entering traffic, and route traffic Ncrth frc the cridge),
(e) Otner traffic control points within Haf.pton as dested neesssary to facilitate flew of traf-fic..
(f) If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
v.
- li
.;/
Vol. 4 F-9 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 23 of 47 1
(S) Advise Seabrcok Police' Department to establish traffic control points and to restrict access to Seebrock Beach at the folicwing locations:
(a) Intersection of Routes 107-and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Eculevard (Reute 1A) and Route 255 (c) Washington Road and Reute 255 (d) Advise Seabreck Police to request Salisbury Massachusetts Police to restrict access to Rcute 285 frcm Route 1 and to facilitate ficw of traf-fic West en Route 256 and Scuth en Route 1 (e) Other traffic control points witnin Seabrock as des ed necessary to facilitate the flow of traffic.
2 (f) If required, the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
(S) Advise Department HHS to activate Reception Canters at Manchester and Salem. Advise CPHS to activate Cecontamination Centers at Manchester and Salem.
(71 Frepare tne apprcpriate EES Message, in accordance with Appendix G, for release.
'2 (8) Provide EBS reessage to Media Center at Nesingten Tom Hall.
(9) Ccnsider extending protective actions to other areas of Seabrcok, Hepten, and Hanpton Falls based en:
(a) Metecrological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment (c) Local Conditions (Attachment C)
(d) Emergency Response Organization Status (e) Plant Status and Pregnosis Vol. 4 F-10 Rev. 2 8/SS
Appendix 1, Page 24 of 47 4..
General Emergency a.
' Initiating conditions (1) All conditions b.
Actions (1) Advise local EOCs and taassachusetts EOC of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Recomend evacuation of general public fran all beach areas along Ocean Eculevard within the towns of Hr;: ten and Seabrock fran Ocean Eculevard and North Shere Road to the Ncrth and Ocean Eoulevard and Route 2SS to the South.
(3) Recomend sheltering fer all remaining areas cf Ha pton, Hampten Falls, and Seabreck.
(4) If wind is fran the South, South-Scutheast, Soutn-Southwest er Southwest, reconrand sheltering for North Hampton.
(5) If wind is from the East-Northeast, East, East-Scutheest, recomend sheltering Kensingt'on and South Hampton.
(6) Advise the Ocparttrant of Raccu"ues ard Econonic Cevelopent to,close tseaches and state park areaa in Hampton and Seabrock fron North Shore Road ard Ocean l-Boulevard to the North ard Route 235 ard Ocean Bo>J1evard to the South, ard to implement special patrols to assure that beaches and parks are cleared.
l (7) Advise State Folice to establish access control points
[
fer affected areas in a 2 mile radius and 5 miles dcwnwird according to Attactrrent B.
I 1
l l
l
?
Vol. 4 F-11 Rev. 2 8/86 i
I
Appendix 1,.Page 25 of 47 (8). Advise Hampton Police Cepartment to establish traffic I
centrol. points at the folicwing specific locations:
(a) Intersection cf Reutes 107 and'U.S.- 1 (b) ~ Ccean Boulevard (Reute 1A) and Reute-51 (c). Reute 51 and Landing Read (d) 'Ccean Eculevard at Hacpten Herber Eridge-(c1cse
~
bridge to departing and entering traffic and traffic Ncrth fror, the bridge)
(e) Other traffic centrol peints within Harpten Esech as deemed necessary to facilitate ficw cf traffic (f) If required the NH State Police will establish these traffic centrol peints.
(S) Advise Seabreck Police Cepartment to establish traffic centrol points at the follcwing specific 1ccatiens:
(a) Interssetien of Reutes 107 and U.S.1
'I (b) Ccean 3culevard (Reute 1A) and Route 286 (c) Washington Read end Rcute 286 2
k
- r.
Vol. 4 F-12 Rev. 2 8/86 P
-,--e v
w
--,a
--~w
-y
.,,-_r,-,
--n,-
e-,
-v-,-
r
Appendix 1, Page 26 of 47 (d) ;Seabreck Police shculd rsquest Salisbury fiassachusetts Police to restrict access en-to Reute 286 frem Reute 1 and to facilitate flew cf traffic West on Route 286 and Scuth en Rcute 1 (e) Other traffic centrcl points within Seabrcck as deemed necessary to facilitate the ficw cf traf-fic.-
2 (f) If required the PE State Police will establish these traffic centrcl points.
(10) Advise Cepartrent HHS to activate Recepticn Centers at Selem and Manchester. Advise CPES te activate Cecentaminatien Centers at activated Receptien Centers.
(11) Prepare the apprcpriate EES Message, in acccrdance with Appendix G, fcr release.
(12) Authcrize activation cf sirens in tlsw Harpshire EPZ.
J (13) Previde EES message to Media Center at tiewingten Tcwn Hall.
(14) Cencider extencling protective actions te other areas of the EPZ based cn:
(a) tietecrolegical Conditices (b) Radiological Assessment (c) Lccel Condit;cns (Attachment C)
(d) Emergency Respense Crganizatien Status (e) Plant Ccnditions Vol. 4 F-13 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 27 of 47 V.
FIGURES A.
FIGURE iA Protective Action Rec a.endation Worksheet 8.
FIGURE 18 Special Facility Protective Action Werksheet C.
FIGURE 2 Frotective Action Rec a.endation By Town O.
FIGURE 3 Evacuatien Clear Times By Wind Directicn E.
FIGURE 4 Protective Actico Rec c.endatico Guidance Charts F.
Figure 4A Special Facility Protective Action Rec r andaticn Guidance Charts G.
FIGUFZ 5 Special Facility Sheltering Facters 2
VI. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Plant Systan censiderations fer Early Protective Actico Decision Making ATTACHMENT 8 Access Centrol Points for Nea Hampshire EPZ ATTACW S1T C Emergency Crganization Status and Local Conditions 3
Vol. 4 F-14 Rev. 2 8/85
F Appendix 1, Page 28 of 47 FIGURE 1A Protective Action Reconnendaticn Worksheet For General Population 1
1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> clock) hours 2.
Time of release start hours 3.
Release duration hcurs 4.
a.
Wind Speed mph i
b.
Wind direction from cegrass 5.
Distance to reference locatien miles 6.
Affected subareas (use Ite s 43 and 5 and Figure 2) 7.
Plume travel time (Iten 5/ Item 4a) 8.
Time until exposure (checs.e a er b) a.
If release has begun:
(1)
Difference (Item 1 - Itsn 2) hours (2)
Time (Itsn 7 - Itern Sa(1)]
heurs b.
If release will begin later g;g.
(1)-
Difference (Itsn 2 - Itsn 1) hcurs (2)
Time [Itsn 7 + Itan 8b(1)]
hours 9.
Evacuation Conditions a.
Season (circle ene)
(1)
Surrrner: May 15 - Sept 15 (see Protective Actions for Seesonal Populations)
(2)
Winter: Sept 15 - May 15 b.
Weather (circle one)
(1)
Normal seascnal weather (mild, light rain, light snow)
(2)
Adverse (Summer: heavy rain /fcg - Winter: heavy snow / ice)
- 10. Evaucation Time hours (Use iterrs 6 and 9 and Figure 3, Evacuation Time Estimates to determine evacuai.ir time.)
- 11. Exposure Time hours
[Itsn 10 - Item Ba(2) er 8b(2)]
Vol. 4 F-15 Rev. 2 8/86
~
Appendix 1, Page 29 of 4'7 FIGURE 1A'(cont'd)
" i,.
-12.. Evacuation Exposure Period hours (smaller of.Itsn 3 or Itan 11)
- 13. Projected Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 14.. Monitoring Team Whole Body Ocse Rate R/hr
- 15. Most Reliable Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr (Item 13 or Itsn 14)
- 16. Projected Thyroid Ocss Rate R/hr
- 17. Monitcring Tesn Thyroid Ocse Rate R/hr (fron calculations)
- 18. Most Reliable Thyroid Oase Rate R/nr 2
(Itsn 16 cr Itsn 17)
- 19. Whole Body Evacuation Ocse R
(Itan 12 x Itan 15)
- 20. Thyroid Evacuation Oose R
(Itsn 12 x Item 18)
- 21. Whole Body Shelter 00se R
(Item 15 x Itan 3 x 0.9) 2 g.
- (i
- 22. Thyroid Shelter Oose (choose a cr b1 i.
a.
Fer release duration of less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Itsn 18 x Iten 3 x 0.5)
R b.
For release duration of greater than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Item 18 x Itsn 3 x [1- 0.5)
R Itsn 3 2
- 23. htola Body -IMicated Action -
refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action, shelter, er evacuation)
- 24. Thyroid indicated action -
refer te Figure 4 (indicate no action, shelter er evacuation)
- 25. Reccmnended Protective Action 3
(Recced mere severe acticn fran Item 23 cr Itan 24 on Figure 2.)
t ;... '
Vol. 4 F-16 Rev. 2 8/86
~
, Appendix 1, Page 30 of 47 Figure 18
^'
SPECIAL FACILITY PROTECTIVS ACTICN WCRKSHEET
~
1.
Facility Name Tcwn
~
2.
Release Duration hrs (Iten 3 fran Figure 1A) 3.
Whole Ecdy Ocss Rate R/hr (Iten 15 fran Figure 1A) 4.
Whcle Ecdy Ocse R
(Itan 3 x Itan 2) 5.
Thyroid Ocss Rate R/hr (Itan la fran Figure 1A) 6.
Thyroid Ocse R
(Iten 5 x I em 2) 7.
Whole Body Shelter Factor (Obtain fran Figure 5) 8.
Thyroid Shelter Facter (Obtain frcrn Figure 5) 9.
Whole Body Shelter Ocse R
(Itan 4 x Item 7)
- 10. Thyroid Shelter Oose R
(Itan 6 x Item 8)
- 11. Whole Body Indicatad Action (Refer to Figure 4A)
- 12. Tnyroid Indicated Action (Refer to Figure 4A)
- 13. Reconnended Protective Actions (List actions fran both Itars 11 and 12) 2 Time of Calculation
-$l Vol. 4 F-17 Rev. 2 8/86
[
p,
Appendix 1, Page 31 of 47 FIGURE 2 Protective Action Recomrendations by Town DISTANCE WINO DIRECTION TOWNS SHELTER EVACUATE (FRCf1) 0-2 miles All SEAEROCK,NH PR'PTON, TN
()
().
HA?PTON FALLS,NH 2-5 miles E'S, E, ESE, SE KENSINGTON, fM
()
()
SOUTH HAMPTON, tM SSE, S, SSW, SW tSRTH F#'PTCN, NH
()
()
5-10 miles ENE,E,ESE ERENTWOOD, fM
()
()
SE,SSE EAST KINGSTON, NH EXETER, NH ll KINGSTON,IM NEWFIELOS, NH fiEWTON, fM STRATHAli, th SSE,S,SSW GREENLAtO, TN
()
()
NEW CASTLE, PF FORTSMOUTH, TN RYE, NH
- 3 Vol. 4 F-18 Rev. 2 8/86
[j
" s' 9
FIGURE 3
_ Total Evacuation Clear Times (Incltuling Notification) By Wirw1 Direction NorTnal Weather (1) (2) 0-2 Nilus 0-2 Niles 0-5 Niles Plus 2-5 tiiles Ihwinri Plus 5-FPZ floundary fkunwirv1 WIto Titti OIOliG)
T it1E O E R WG) lif1E DEHG)
FROr1 (DEGREES)
S E-AREAS W7NTER (1) 9FFER (2)
Sull-ARCAS WINTER (1)
StilTR (2)
Gil-NEAS WINTER (1) 9tTER (2)
NPM, N 32ti to A,Is,C NNE, NE 56 A,B 2.92 5.75 0,E 3.25 6.08 SG to A,0,C ENE, E 101 A B.C 2.92 5.75 0,E,F 3.25 G.08 101 to A,0,C ESE 124 A,C 2.56 5.00 0,F 3.25 G.08 124 to A.B.C SE 14S A,C 0 2.5n 5.25 0,F, 3.25 6.08 146 to A,ll, C SSE, S 191 A C,0 2.58 5.25 0,F.C 3.25 G.0a 191 to A,0 C SSW, SW 236 A.D 2.58 5.25 0,C 3.25 6.08 236 to l
A,0 C
'WSW 258 A,0 2.50 5.25 0
3.08 G.08 258 to A,0,C W. WrM 303 A
2.58 5.75 0
3.08 G.08 303 to A,0,C NW 32S A,B 2.92 5.75 0
3.00 6.08 Any
- p g Direction A
2.58 5.75 yI c0 D
Notes: (1) For winter ajverse weather coru11tions (heavy snow) aH 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.
h.
M (2) For stnmer ajverse weather conrlitions (heavy rain arvi fog) aki 2.0 hnurs.
g.
Mm LQ Vol. 4 F-19 Rev. 2 8/86 PJ -
Om A
4
p-Appendix 1, Page 33 of 47 i
FIGURE 4 b
Protective Action Reconmandation Guidance Charts
,a WHOLE 800Y GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Projected dose-(Itsn 16) is No action less-than 1 rem Shelter dose (Item 21) is Shelter less than 5 ran Shelter dose-(Item 21) is equal to cr greater than 5 ran and evacuation dcse Shelter (Item 19) is equal to er greater than shelter dose Shelter dese (Iten 21) is equal to or greater than 5 ran and evacuation dose Evacuate (Itan 19) is less than shelter dose THYROIO GUIDANCE CHART Dose (Itsn 16) is'less than No Action X
5 ram Shelter dose (Item 22) is Shelter less than 25 ran Shelter dose (Item 22) is equal to or greater than 25 ran and evacuation dose Shelter (Iten 20) is equal to er greater than shelter dese)
Shelter dose (Item 22) is equal to or greater thart 25 ran and evacuation dose Evacuate sneb. 20) is less than (It er dose)
Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilatien centrol means turning off air conditioners er fans, which draw upon cutdece air, closing decrs and windcws, thus preventing access of curdoor air. Prcceed 2
to a baserent if available.
II;.
Vol. 4 F-20 Rev. 2 8/86
Appendix 1, Page 34 of 47 FIGURE 4A
'O SPECIAL FACILITY FROTECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATION GUIDANCE CHART WHOLE SODY GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Shelter dose (Item 9, Figure 18) is less than 5 ram Shelter Shelter dcse (Item 9 Figure 15) is equal to cr greater (han 5 rem and evacuation dose (Its,19, Figure 1A) is equal to cr greater tnan shelter dcse Shelter equal to cr greater lhan 5 rem a)nd Shelter dose (Item 9 Figure 18 is is less tnan she ter dese, Figure 1A) evacuation dose Itan 19 Evacuate THYROIO GUIDANCE CHART 1' @
IF i
THEN Shelter dose (Item 10, Figure 18) is less than 25 rem Shelter Shelter dose (Itsu 10, Figure 18) is greater than 25 ran and evacuation dose (Itsn 20, Figure 1A) is equal to cr greater than shelter dose Shelter Shelter dose (Itsm 10, Figure 18) is greater than 25 ran and evacuation Evacuate er dose (Item 20, Figure 1A) is less gonsider KI than shelter dose issuance Shelter is to be with ventilation centrol. Ventilatien centrol means turning off air conditioners er fans which draw upon cutdocr air, cicsing decrs and windows, thus preventing access of outside air. Proceed to a basenent if a/ailable.
2
-l:
s.')
Vol. 4 F-21 Rev. 2 8/85
Appendix 1, Page 35 of 47 r
> 2 e
c g
T h e
%d.
E![EE EEEE$
E EEEEEE E a e
['
54 I
i E CCCtt EttCC t Ectttt t ti G
N
- ~
E }. I h8 u.3. %
e w e h. e e e
e erver ervee e
- e. l E
ome e r.
e r
e r.n e n n n e r. m n
43-
'. [. '
o C
e Ec u c
e L
E EEE!!
EEEEE E EEE*EE E
C 6
Cyg
=-
C CCCCC LCLtc C CCCECC C
U '
wc c e
=
~
E E
hhEEE EE%
E hhhhhE h
h b h.
w c
w.
.t.
2 '>
u c
w 2
e
-e
["
O 4#
a
- pC EEEEh
! TEE!!!
! E Ccc CCCCC C~CCC C CCCCCC t d fa g
e Edd
?>.
er-e.
- e. s.
b-C s e e. C k-c 6*
A.
- e. m. P. P. 5
.. = * -
~
c A
ee
..Nc
?'
c, 5 C
--CC eCe C
C z
L*
C L
33 U ~
3 y
i
~
E9
-5c
> d e
g d
e t
4 P.
$N L
C C
-E9 w
e w e e.== s-e L
e
- e eeeee eeece e
b*
[E
....N
....i.
N h k h w C Al C CCCCC CCCCC C
CCCCCC C
y
? e e
h a
O
=6 C
b C C L
CC U$
e.
6* w e. r. e.
w e. e. 6* e.
e.
- e. e. b* b* b* h*
w*
. m f.
3 k.
4s a
-.c.
e e-C CCCCC CCCCC C
CCCC==
=
C g-v)
C wN ah a
1 wd
{.
=
a
-n U
C O
'y T.
y.b t.-
m g
h C
u
- : R
~
= 8 W
9-E y b '
e s-e e
c 3e e
w e @ C. s,r.
N. C. C. e. A.
N.
C. b* A. b* e. 6*
C.
C P. M.
.c N.
s -
g j
-y C
CCCCC CCCCC C
CCCCCC C
j.
g e
-u e.
. u N
Ee.
U V
W a
cy 30 2
- 5 e a u
4 C
0 E.
E a
,4 Q
T-61:r" 6
' O e
nmnme
~ ~~~~~~
2 6
eE e,
N, N, N, A, ~,
e, e,
C.
E
~
y C-n
~~~.~e=~
eeece
-.. = - -
ee e e ee s
C e
== s-e e
- u wE C.
.L C-Va 5
ee e.
e
==
1W d,
se 4
e e
a C
2 w
3 e
=e 8
5 cm u
CCS E
5 ii h
'e: @
y5 P C
w c.
c.
.d n u
u
-2 u
h d, C
WU C
7 c a o
w.
2 6 L y
C i'i b
2 qu CC e
"5
.k
.C. 'L' h ~
c& S
.C
~~
2
~
=
s c.
wc 2
. acb zu.;
C
- c. 6 a = u. d e x hu v
a C
-X 5
s.a e
-2n
- eca grC; V, - 2 a-c; e
e
=
c, o-u b-C
-C acwww 5
5,! _:,5 s
s C
ag-
- w,
-u C
C-+-w
~
4 j
5"
.3CCO l3 "d
s cjggag g
5 g a
c
-wI a
s a 1 !?,
e.
e s. e n ) P
--42f
-I
- 5
- C 3
5 da -
e P. b.s,
,E 5
w hbaa2 g.
e a
4 w
ww6 m
c3 w r,
ss e
-~
e se
~. - g y y
.v r
z ee t 4 0 ** ** 3 6,.
W N
O C
P OOOO 2
w i 6 L
wwww l
W WU C
3
-Appendix 1,.Page 36 of'47 ATTACH 1ENT A
.f PLANT SYSTEM CONSICERATIONS FOR EARLY PROTECTIVE ACTION CECISION MAKING f
When censidering early protective actions, particularly fcr seasonal popu--
lations, primary concerns are plant conditions.and pregncsis rather than pro-jected er measured radiological consequences. Particular attentien en the part of the decision makers shculd, therciere, be directed to the follcwing per-
.tinent plant systems and conditicns.
e.
Reacter Ccclant System 1.
What is reactor vessel level? Is reacter ecoling adequate?
2.
What is reacter ccre exit ecoling temperature. Is reacter eccling effective?
3.
What is reacter ecolant pressure? Are pressures increasing er decreasing beyond normal operational pressuras?
4.
Confirm whether reacter has been snut down.
8.
Turbine Generatcr System 1.
What are Stean Line Monitor readings?
2.
Oc raadings indicate primary systen to secondary system leakags with radicactivity?
C.
Electric Power Systens 1.
Are emergency buses - buses E-5 and E-S - pewsred?
2.
Are the buses pcwered by off-site power source er by on-site diesel generater source?
D.
Radiation Data Manage ent System
^
1.
What are readings en Wide Range Gas Monitors en the Primary Vent Stack that would indicate release rates fran containment?
4
. ' _=
Vol. 4 F-23 Rev. 2 8/8SC o
-*-*g g
e-e
,,,-,weg
,y,-y
,-rr
-,w
,-,-,-%m-%e-r--vv
,y---,
Appendix'1, Page 37 of 47 ATTACHMENT A (cont'd) 2.
What are readings en Main Steanline Manitors that would indi-cate significant levels cf activity in the secondary systen?
3.
What are In-ContainTent Pcst-LOCA Monitor readings that would indicate increase of activity inside the containtant structure?
E.
Engineered Safety Features 1.
Status cf containment integrity? Is contain ent isolated?
2.
Activation of E,margency Core Ccoling Systen? Is there safety injection?
3.
Status of centainment air pressure? Is pressure inside ccn-tair.vant increasing, decreasing, er steady?
4.
If press e inside centainment is a concern, what is status of Centainment Spray Systern?. Is it available?
F.
Metecrological Measurenants Systen 1.
Wind Sceed?
2.
Wiro Direction?
3.
Frecipitation?
4.
Atmospheric Stability Class? Affeet that stability class would have on p'.ine dinpersion?
NOTE CN ATMOSPE RIC STABILITY CLASS:
The metecrological measurenent system will provide atmospheric data leading to classification of atmospheric conditions ranging fran relative turbulence to relative stability. Atmospheric Stability Classes ares l
A - excremely unstable B - moderately unstable l
C - slightly unstable 0 - neutral j
l E - slightly stable f
F - moderately stable G - very stable l
Vol. 4 F-24 Rev. 2 8/86 l
i t
Appendix 1, Page 38 of'47 ATTACWENT 8
,;;.~.
ACCESS CONTROL FOINTS FOR fEW F#FSHIRE EPZ Raference traffic rnanagenent manual for traffic and access centrol points.
NOTE The Traffic Managerent Manual allecates responsibility for Irrplementation of Traffic and Access Centrol Points.
.\\u, t
i s'fh/
i i
l Vol. 4 F-25 Rev. 2 8/86 4
m...
-,--,m_.,
,w._,...m,__g..
Appendix 1, Page 39 of 47 ATTACHMENT C
.~
EMERGENCY GGAt1IZATICtl STATUS NJO LOCAL CCNDITICfJS A.
Rescense Status of the State and Town Evergency Organizatiens 1.
The prctective action decision rest take into consideraticn the status of state and tcwn stergency perscnnel and rescurces and the timing cf the prctective acticn anncuncerents to the public.
2.
Of particular impcrtance to preep.utionary acticns fer the beach areas is the status cf the State Police and lccal police to imple ent traffic and access centrols.
it 3.
Status censideratiens include:
a.
Availebility cf persennel b.
Time required fer rebilization c.
Cegree to thich rebilizaticn has pregressed d.
Time reqJired fer implementatico cf energency acticns B.
Lccal Ccnditicr;s 1.
Local ecrcitiens within an affected area may ccnstrain protective action decisions and their implementatien.
2.
Lccel ccnditiens should be repcrted to cecisien rekers by local ECC personnel thrcugh the IFC at Newingten.
3.
Pertinent 1ccal conditiens include:
a.
Cceditiens of read and evacuation rcutes censidering:
(1) Seesenal travel impediments (2) Status of reed repairs (3) Surface conditiens due to weather
"?,?
w Vol. 4 F-26 Rev. 2 8/86 a
4 Appendix 1, Page 40 of'47 w.
ATTACW.ENT C (cent'd)
- {. '
(4) Natural er man-made impediments (5) Affect cf traffic signals en traffic ficw in direction of i'
-evacuation.,
4 b.- Pcpulation density and distribution c.
Evacuatien rcute capabilities.
d.
Inclement weather ccnditiens that wculd affect travel (snew, fcg, heavy rains, etc.)
e.
Lccal events sich r ay present require ents fer special notifica-tien, traffic centrol, transpcrtatien assistance f.
Status of schcols and ether special facilities.
~$
J f
't ;/;f Vol. 4 F-27 Rev. 2 8/66
Appendix 1, Page 41 of 47 ATTACHT NT II Procosed redifi' cation of Protective Action Cecision Criteria Procedure Volume 4, Accendix F volume 4A, Apcendix U Upon adoption of the proposed modification Attachment I would oe inserted into Appendix F and Appendix U, Vol. 4A and replace pages Fil-F16 and pages Ull-U16 respectively.
4 1
1 7
I 78638
Appendix 1, Page 42 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (1 of 6) l (Modification of Protective Action Decision Criteria Procedure Volume 4. Appendix F: Volume 4A Appendix U) l 4.
General Emergency a,
Initiating conditions (1) All conditions b.
Actions (1) Advise local EOCs and Massachusetts EOC of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Determine protective actions for Hampton. Hampton Falls and Seabrook using Figure 1A and Attachment C:
(a) For seasonal beach populations in Hampton and Seabrook recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
CAUTION If precautionary beach closure or beach evacuation has been recommended at an earlier Emergency Classification Level, evacuation must continue to be the recommended erotective action.
(b) For the remainder of Hampton, Hampton Falls and Seabrook. recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
(3) Advise the Department of Resources and Economic Development to close beaches and state park areas in Hampton and Seabrook from North Shore Road and Ocean Boulevard to the North and Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard to the Soutn. and to implement special patrols to assure that beaches and parks are cleared.
(4) Advise State Police to establish access control points for affected areas in a 2 mile radius and 5 miles downwind according to Attachment B.
(5) Advise Hampton Police Department to establish traffic control points at the following specific locations:
(a) Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Boulevard (Route 1A) and Route 51 (c) Route 51 and Landing Road e
L/435BK.13
Appendix 1, Page 43 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (2 of 6)
(d) Ocean Boulevard at Hampton Harbor Bridge (close bridge to departing and entering traffic and traffic North from the bridge)
(e) Other traffic control points within Hampton Beach as deemed necessary to facilitate flow of traffic (f)
If required the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
(6) Advise Seabrook Police Department to establish traffic control points at the following specific locations:
(a)
Intersection of Routes 107 and U.S. 1 (b) Ocean Boulevard (Route 1A) and Route 286 (c) Washington Road and Route 286 (d) Seabrook Police should request Salisbury Massachusetts Police to restrict access on to Route 286 frow Route 1 and to facilitate flow of traffic West on Route 286 and South on Route 1 (e) Other traf fic control points within Seabrook as deemed necessary to facilitate the flow of traf-fic.
(f) If required the NH State Police will establish these traffic control points.
(7) Advise Department HHS to activate Reception Centers at Salem and Manchester. Advise DPHS to activate Decontamination Centers at activated Reception Centers.
(8) Prepare the appropriate EBS Message, in accordance with Appendix G, for release.
(9) Authorize activation of sirens in New Hampshire EPZ.
(10) Provide EBS message to Media Center at Newington Town Hall.
(11) Consider extending protective actions to other areas of the EPZ based on Figure 1A and updated information regarding:
(a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment (c) Local Conditions (Attachment C)
(d) Emergency Response Organization Status (e) Plant Conditions e
L/435BK.14
Appendix 1, Page 44 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (3 of 6)
V.
FIGURES A.
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet B,
FIGURE 19 Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet e
L/435BK.15
Appendix 1, Page 45 of 47 L,c ATTACKMENT II (4 of 6)
FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet For General Population 1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> clock) hours 2.
-Time of release start hours q.
3.
Release duration
. hours 4.
a.
Wind Speed sph b.
Wind direction from degrees 5.
Distance to reference location miles 6.
Affected subareas (use Items 4B and 5 and Figure 3) 7.
Plume travel time (Item 5/ttem 4a) 8.
Time until exposure (choose a or b) a.
If release has begun:
(1)
Difference (Item 1 - Item 2) hours (2)
Time (Item 7 - Item 8a(111 hours0.00128 days <br />0.0308 hours <br />1.835317e-4 weeks <br />4.22355e-5 months <br /> b.
If release will berin later (1)
Difference (Item 2 - Item 1) hours (2)
Time (Item 7 + Item 8b(1))
hours 9.
Evacuation Conditions a.
Season (circle one)
(1)
Summer: May 15 - Sept 15 (2)
Winter: Sept 15 - May 15 b.
Weather (circle one)
(1)
Normal seasonal weather (mild, light rain, light snow)
(2)
Adverse (Summer: heavy rain / fog - Winter: heavy snow / ice)
L/435BK.16
I I
Appendix 1, Page 46 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (5 of 6) 10.
Evacuation Time hours (Use Items 6 and 9 and Figure 3. Evacuation Time Estimates to determine evacuation time.)
11.
Exposure Time hours (Item 10 - Item 8a(2) or 8b(2)]
12.
Evacuation Exposure Period hours (smaller of Item 3 or Item 11) 13.
Projected Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 14.
Monitoring Team Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 15.
Most Reliable Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr (Item 13 or Item 14) 16.
Projected Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr 17.
Monitoring Team Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (from calculations) 18.
Most Reliable Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (Item 16 or Item 17) 19.
Whole Body Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 15) 20.
Thyroid Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 18) 21.
Whole Body Shelter Dose R
(Item 15 x Item 3 x 0.9) 22.
Thyroid Shelter Dose (choose a or b) a.
For release duration of less than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Item 18 x Item 3 x 0.5)
R b.
For release duration of greater 0.5 than I hour (Item 18 x Item 3 x 1-item 3)
R L/435BK.17
Appendix 1, Page 47 of 47 ATTACHMENT II (6 of 6) 23.
Whole Bot; tr.Sicated Action hours refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action, sh61ter, or evacuation) 24.
Thyroid Indicated Action -
hours refer to Figure 4 (indicates no action, shelter, or evacuation) 25.
Recommended Protective Action (Record more severe act.on from Item 23 or Item 24 on Figure 2.)
e e
L/435BK.18
v Page 1 of 35 STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE PROTECTIVE ACTION DECISION CRITERIA I.
Purpose
-This appendix establishes criteria and guidance to facilitate protective action decisions for the general population within the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zone for the Seabrook Station. Criteria and guidance for precautionary and protective action decisions are also pro-
[2 vided for certain special populations and for summer populations.
II.
Responsibility A.
Accident assessment personnel of the Division of Public Health Services are responsible for implementing parts III.A. and III.B. of this appendix.
B.
Decision making personnel of the Governor's office, the New Hampshire Office of Emerg:ncy Management, and the Division of Public Health-l2 Services are responsible for implementing decision guidance contained in Part IV of this appendix.
III. Protective Action Decisions for General Population A.
Use of Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet for General Population 1.
Obtain a copy of Figure IA. Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet for General Population.
2.
Using information from the nuclear facility operator. IFO per-sonnel will complete a worksheet for each distance of interest.
REVIEW COPY APR 14 t988 Vol. 4 F-1 Rev. 2 2/88
__,-Page 2 of 35 3.
Report the results of the evaluation to the DPHS IFO Coordinator and the NHOEM EOF Liaison.
l B.
Additional Considerations for Special Facilities with Significant Shielding Characteristics 1.
Obtain a copy of Figure 18. Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet.
2.
Complete the worksheet.
3.
Report the results of the evaluation to the DPHS IFO Coordinator and the NHOEM EOF Liaison, j
CAUTION SPECIAL FACILITY SHELTERING FACTORS LISTED ON FIGURE 5 ARE NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES.
I t
SCHOOLS WILL FOLLOW THE SAME PROTECTIVE ACTIONS PRESCRIBED FOR THE GENERAL POPULATION.
C.
Protective action recommendations will be provided by the utility emergency response organization based on emergency classification level or plant status in accordance with Attachment A.
2 D.
Potential offsite constraints to be considered in determining action time for implementation of protective actions are contained in Attachment C.
IV.
Protective Action Decision Making for Seasonal Beach Populations t
A.
General Considerations 1.
Precautionary actions affecting seasonal beach populations may be warranted at an early stage of an emergency before protec-tive actions for the general population are warranted.
2.
Radiological assessment data may not be available or useful when considering early precautionary action decisions for seasonal beach populations.
RE\\1EW COM APR 141988 l
i Vol. 4 F-2 Rev. 2 2/88 I
Page 3 of_35 3.
Prognosis of deteriorating plant conditions may compel imple-mentation of precautionary actions, without consideration of PAG ranges, when seasonal beach populations are potentially affected. Plant status and prognosis of plant conditions will be provided by utility emergency personnel in accordance with Attachment A.
2 4.
Precautionary actions for seasonal beach populations would include:
a.
Consider closing beaches and other recreational facilities' l2 that attract seasonal populations and which are in close proximity to the plant, i.e.,
within an approximate 2 mile
- radius, b.
Implementation of access and traffic control at roadway points leading to these affected areas to monitor traffic and to advise, people of actions taken, c.
Issuance of public announcements of actions taken through l
EBS and normal media channels.
l2 d.
Continued monitoring of traffic flow and local conditions in affected areas.
CAUTION PRECAUTIONARY ACTIONS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PERIOD MAY 15 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 15.
B.
Precautionary and Protective Actions by Emergency Classification Level 1.
Alert a.
Initiating Conditions REVIEW COPY APR 141988 Vol 4 F-3 Rev. 2 2/88 1
l b
-a, Page 4 of 35-Plant conditions as determined by plant personnel indicate e
that a major plant system is unstable or degrading.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Resources-and Economic Development (DRED) to close beaches and state park areas in Hampton Beach and in Seabrook Deach between Great Boars Head to the North and Route 286 (NH/MA l2 border) to the South.
Recommend that the Towns of Hampton and Seabrook close any town-supervised beaches in concurrence with the state's decision.
(2) DRED will advise beach and State Park population of closing.
2 (3) Request Rockingham County Dispatch Center to activate the Public Alert and Notification System along the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook to announce the clo-sings.
9 (4) Request State Police to implement access control in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual.
2 t
REVIEW COPY APR 141988 L
Vol. 4 F-4 Rev. 2 2/88 I
.m
.y,-
---s,c,.r,---
_a-.,---
r
-Attachmant 1, Page 5 of 35 l
i i
(5) Advise the Hampton and Seabrook Police Departments to establish traffic control points identified in the Traffic Management Manual.
(6)
If local police departments are unable to establish traffic control points, notify State Police to I
establish priority traffic control points.
(7) Authorize broadcast of pre-recorded "Alert" Message
- 5. Appendix G. over EBS radio chaanels. Provide a copy of the text to the Media Center at Newington Town Hall, if activated.
2 2.
Site Area Emergency Without Degrading Plant Conditions l2 a.
Initiating Conditions Plant conditions are stable without indication of further degradation as determined by plant personnel.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) to close beaches and state park I
areas in Hampton Beach and in Seabrook Beach between Great Boars Head to the North and Route 286 to the l2 South.
Recommend that the towns of Hampton and Seabrook close any town-supervised beaches in concurrence with the state's decision.
(2) Request Rockingham County Dispatch Center to activate i
the Public Alert and Notification System along the beaches in Hampton and Seabrook to announce the closings.
RFAEW COPY APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-5 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachmsnt 1, Page 6 of 35 (3) Request State Police to implement access control in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual and restrict access on the part of non-residents to Hampton Beach and to Seabrook Beach.
(4) Advise the Hampton and Seabrook Police Departments to establiah traffic control points in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual and restrict access on the part of non-residents.
(5)
If local poilce departments are unable to establish traffic control points, notify State Police to establish priority traffic control points.
(6) Authorize broadcast of pre-recorded "Site Area Emergency" Message 5. Appendix G, over EBS radio channels.
(7) New Hampshire EPZ sirens will be activated, (8) After releasing EBS message, provide a copy of the text to the Media Center at Newington Town Hall, if activated.
2 3.
Site Area Emergency with Degrading Plant Conditions a.
Initiating Conditions Prognosis of plant status as determined by plant personnel indicates degradation of a major plant system (see Attachment A).
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise NH local EOCs, Massachusetts EOC and the NHY ORO of the Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
REVIEW COF1 2
APR 14 GB8 Vol. 4 F-6 Rev. 2 2/88 I
Attachm2nt 1, Page 7-of 35 4.
General Emergency a.
Initiating conditions All conditions l2 i
NOTE Protective action recommendations may be provided by the utility emergency response organization based on emergency classification level.or plant status in accordance with Attachment A.
Verify before proceeding.
2 b.
Actions (1) Advise NH local EOCs. Massachusetts EOC and NHY ORO l2 of Governor's declaration of state of emergency.
(2) Determine protective actions for Hampton. Hampton Falls and Seabrook using Figure 1A and Attachment C:
(a) For seasonal beach populations in Hampton and Seabrook recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (';).
CAUTION If precautionary beach closure or beach evacuation has been recommended at an earlier Emergency Classification Level, evacuation must continue to be the recommended protective action.
(b) For the remainder of Hampton. Hampton Falls and Seabrook, recommend sheltering or evacuation in accordance with the results of Step (2).
2 REVIEW COPT APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-8 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 8 of 35 (3) Advise the Department of Resources and Economic Development to close beaches and state park areas in Hampton and Seabrook from Ocean Boulevard and Great Boar's Head to the North and Route 286 and Ocean Boulevard to the South.
2 (4) Advise State Police to establish access control points for affected areas in a 2 mile radius and 5 miles downwind.
Refer to the Traffic Management Manual for identification of points in the affected area.
2 (5) Advise the Hampton and Seabrook Police Departments to establish traffic control points in accordance with the Traffic Management Manual.
2 (6) Advise Department HHS to activate Reception Centers et Salem and Manchester. Advise DPHS to activate Decontamination Centers at activated Reception Centers.
(7) Prepare the appropriate EBS Message, in accordance with App'en'd'ix G.
for release. Activate EBS and authorize broadcast.
2 (8) New Hampshire sirens will be activated.
l2 (9) After releasing EBS message, provide a copy to Media Center at Newington Town Hall.
2 (10) Consider extending protective actions to other areas of the EPZ based on Figure 1A and update information regarding:
2 (a) Meteorological Conditions (b) Radiological Assessment REVIEW COF APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-9 Rev. 2 2/88 Paga 9 of 35 (c) Local Conditions (Attachment C1 (d) Emergency Response Organization Status (e) Plant Conditiens V.
FIGURES A.
FIGURE 1A Procective Action Recommendation Worksheet B.
FICURE IB Special Facility Protective Action Worksheet C.
FIGURE 2 Map of Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA)
D.
FIGURE 2A Evacuation Scennrios E.
FIGURE 3 ETE Values F.
FIGURE 4 Protective Action Recommendation Guidance Charts 2
G.
Figure 4A Special Facility Protective Action Recommendation Guidance Charts H.
FIGURE 5 Special Facility Sheltering Factors VI.
ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A Plant Status Information and Protective Action Recommendations 2
ATTACHMENT B Access Control Points for New Hampshire EPZ ATTACHMENT C Emergency Organization Status and Local Conditions REVIEW COP',
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-10 Rev. 2 2/88
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - _ - - - -, Page 10 of 35 FIGURE 1A Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet For General Population 1.
Time of calculation (use 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> clock) hours 2.
Time of release start hours
~
l 3.
. Release duration hours t
4.
a.
Wind Speed sph b.
Wind direction from degrees 5.
Distance to reference location (2. 5 or 10 miles) elles l2 6.
Affected ERPA (use Figure 2) l 7.
Plume travel time (Item 5/ Item 4a) r 8.
Time until exposure (choose a or b) a.
If release has begun:
[
(1)
Difference (Item 1 - Item 2) hours 4
J (2)
Time (Item 7 - Item 8a(1)]
hours b.
If release will begin later (1)
Difference (Item 2 - Item 1) hours (2)
Time [ Item 7 + Item 8b(1)]
hours 9.
Scenario (use Figure 2A) 1 t
REVIEW COPY t
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-13 Rev. 2 2/88
)
l 1
, Page 11 of 35 FIGURE 1A (cont'd) 10.
Evacuation Time hours (Use items 6 and 9 and Figure 3) l2 11.
Exposure Time hours (Item 10 - Item 8a(2) or 8b(2)]
12.
Evacuation Exposure Period hours (smaller of Item 3 or Item 11) 13.
Projected Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 14.
Monitoring Team Whole Body Dose Rate R/hr 15.
Most Reliable Whole Body Dose Rate R / h t-(Item 13 or Item 14) 16.
Projected Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr 17.
Monitoring Team Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (from calculations) 18.
Most Reliable Thyroid Dose Rate R/hr (Item 16 or Item 17) 19.
Whole Body Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 15) 20.
Thyroid Evacuation Dose R
(Item 12 x Item 18)
REVIEW COPY APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-12 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 12 of 35 FIGURE 1A (cont'd) 21.
Whole Body Shelter Dose R
(Item 15 x Item 3 x 0.9) 22.
Thyroid Shelter Dose (choose a or b) a.
For release duration of less than I hour (Item 18 x Item 3 x 0.5)
R b.
For release duration of greater than 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> (Item 18 x Item 3 x {1-0.5
]
R Item 3 2
23.
Whole Body Indicated Action -
refer to Figure 4 (indicate no acticn,
,l shelter, or evacuation) 24.
Thyroid indicated action -
refer to Figure 4 (indicate no action.
l2 shelter or evacuation) 25.
Recommended Protective Action ___
(Record more severe action from i tem 23 or Item 24 on Figure 2. )
New Hampshire Communities within Emergency Response Planning Areas (ERPA):
ERPA A ERPA F Seabrook Brentwood Hampton Falls East Kingston Hampton Beach Exeter Kingston ERPA C Newfields Kensington Newton South Hampton ERPA C ERPA D Greenland REV1EW COPg' Hampton (except for Hampton Beach)
New Castle North Hampton Portsmouth APR 141988 Rye Stratham 2
Vol. 4 F-13 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachment.1, Page 13 of 35 W
b
- *s.'
.\\
L ison '
'.z l}.', (
\\
Figure 2.
Map of EPZ Delineating all Emergency 'tesponse
'[ I w
Planning Areas (ERPA)
,.c t
?%.
1, >
r
',,,, Y gh'a y ~ %,~'_,, y f
s'..
y
- i. ? -
i,,' s s
3
% c.
~
i.,
}
f.
/. '
j
^%,
'I r
~
..e -
44 7
4.
=r m
n, 4~
\\
M
~~
r-
.a a s f
g i
/
5 j
r *,.. ;.
w
~
(,,
F
~.
_f
%m l
a.
s s
l pg h*f,y s
x l
v
\\
i l
i y
pg"
=
%.1 w
C
\\
l uQ l
\\
d.
U g
B d
a g
%.e ser
(
lm A
-sc:
~ ~.,, %.s.
- ~...X c.--.
s._
\\
T
.J T'
/N
~
3
$.w,'
f y
b r..n.,
/
u
)f* 3'
mz
(
.,r gg vr
\\
h'Nk"
'I s
(/'
- e-
/- :/
' \\,
s\\J
/
/
y
=
- j
\\
y e ~-.
r
/'
/
'4"\\')- T-u
/
/
t..
p#
v3 f.Y
%= /
I y. ;(
1
FIGURE 2.A EVACUATION SCENARIOS 1-10 Scannrio Season Day Time Weather Comments 1
Summer Weekend Mid-day Good Beach area population at capacity. Employees are at 70 pct. of mid-week in towns with beach areas 40 pct. in remaining towns. Tourists fill available seasonal and overnight facilities, with half of them at the beach areas.
2 Summer Weekend Mid-day Rain As above. Sudden rain occurs with heach population at capacity con-current with accident at Seabrook Station.
3 Summer Mid-week Mid-day Good Beach area and tourist population at 75 pct. of capacity. Employees are at 100 pct. of mid-week work force.
^
4 Summer Mid-week Mid-day Rain As above. Sudden rain occurs.
5 Off-Season Mid-week Mid-day Good Tourist population at 50 pct. of yearly capacity (i.e., facilities which remain open the entire year). No beach area transients.
Employees at 100 pct.
G Off-Season Mid-week Mid-day Rain As above, but for inclement (rain) weather.
- p -
.' n n
7 off-season Mid-week Mid-day Snow conditions the same as for Scenario 5 except that there is inclement 8
weather (snow). Evacuees must clear driveways.
h BO 8
off-Season Mid-week Evening Good Tourist population at 50 pct. of yearly capacity. No locach area tran- '
'D Weekend All day sients. Employees at 25 pct. of old-week, mid-day.
)
H.
9 Off-Season Mid-week Evening Rain As above, but for inclement (rain) weather.
Weekend Al1 day E
d) 0 10 Of - ason Mid-week Evening Snow As above, but for inclement (snow) weather. Evacuees must clear l-M V @@$tynd All day driveways.
APR 141988 t>
i vi Vo l. 4 F-16 Rev. 2 2/88
]
Attachmsnt 1, Page 15 of-35'
'l
- r; FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From)
NW & NNW & N & NNE Degrees:
303' - 34' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius, 5-mile radius-5 Mile Downwind Sector 10-Mile Downwind Sector 1
ERPA:
A, 8 A B C,D,E
{
l Distance fron l
Seabrook (ni):
2 5
i Scenarios f
1 6:00 6:40 2
7:25 8:05 3
5:10 5:15 4
6:40 6:50 5
3:55 4:00 6
5:05 5:10 7
5:50 6:00 8
3:30 3:35 9
3:55 4:00 10 4:35 4:45 2
REVIEW COP':
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-17 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachmsnt 1, Pago 16 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
E b NE & ENE Jegrees:
34' - 101' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius, 5-mile radius, 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Secter ERPA:
A, BC A-F Distance from Seabrook (mi):
5 to Scenarios 1
6:20 6:40 2
7:45 8:10 3
5:15 5:35 4
6:50 7:05 5
4:00 5:30 6
5:10 6:40 7
6:00 7:25 8
3:35 3:55 9
4:00 4:20 10 4:45 6:00 2
REVIEW COP.
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-18 Rev. 2 2/88
i 1
. x Attachmsnt 1, Paga-17 of'35-FIGURE 3 i
ETE VALUES
,+
f itind Direction (From):
ESE Degrees:
101* - 123' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles I
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius.
5-mile radius.
5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA:
A. C A. B.C.D.F
=
t Distance from Seabrook (mi):
5 100 Scenarios 1
6:20 6:40 i
2 7:45 8:10
.a 3
4:40 5:20 4
6:10 7:05 S
4:00 4:05 i
6 4:25 5:25 i
t 7
5:25 6:25 i
8 3:35 3:55 l
j 9
3:35 4:20
!?
10 4:45 6:00
[
2 1
REVIEW COPY l
i.
APR 141988 i
i 1
i 4
i i
i Vol. 4 F-19 Rev. 2 2/88 1
I f
.m.
m.
m.
Attnchmsnt 1, Pags 18 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
123' - 168' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius, 5-mile radius.
5 Mlle Downwind Sector 10 Mlle Downwind Sector ERPA:
A. C, D A.B C,D,F.G Distance 'from Seabrook imi):
5 10 Scenarios 1
6:35 6:50 2
8:05 9:55 3
4:45 5:50 4
6:10 8:05 5
4:00 4:50 6
4:25 5:45 7
5:25 6:55 8
3:35 4:25 9
3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2
REVIEW COF APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-20 Rev. 2 2/88
, Paga 19 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUE.*
Wind Direction (Froml:
S Degrees:
168' - 191.5*
Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius.
5-mile radius, 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA:
A. D A.B.C,D.F,G Distance from Seabrook (mi):
5 to Scenarios 1
6:35 6:50 2
8:05 9:55 3
4:45 5:50 4
6:10 8:05 5
4:00 4:50 6
4:25 5:45 7
3:25 6:55 8
3:35 4:25 9
3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2
REVIEW COf" APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-21 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachm3nt 1, Page 20 of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
191.5' - 259' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius.
5-mile radius.
5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA:
A. D A,B,C.D,G Distance from Seabrook (al):
5 to Scenarios 1
6:35 6:50 2
8:05 9:50 3
4:45 5:50 4
6:10 8:05 5
4:00 4:50 6
4:25 5:45 7
5:25 6:55 8
3:35 4:25 9
3:35 5:30 10 4:45 6:25 2
REVIEW COPY APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-22 Rev. 2 2/88
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, Pcga al of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
W Degrees:
259' - 281.5' Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius, 5-mile radius, 5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA:
A. D A, B, C, D.
Distance from Seabrook (mi):
}
1 scenarios 1
6:35 6:35 2
8:05 8:05 3
4:45 5:15 4
6:10 6:50 5
4:00 4:00 6
4:25 5:10 7
5:25 6:00 8
3:35 3:35 9
3:35 4:00 10 4:45 4:45 2
REVIEW CGr APR 14 GSb Vol. 4 F-23 Rev. 2 2/88
. - _ _ _,- Paeje. 22 of 35
.FIOURE 3
.ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
M.
Degrees:
281.5' - 303*
Location Distance:
2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
r Configuration:
2-mile radius.
5-mile radius.
5 Mile Downwind Sector 10 Mile Dcwnwind Sector l
ERPA:
A A,B'C,D.
Distance from Seabrook (mi):
2 5
[
Scenarios P
1 6:00 6:35 2
7:25 8:05 3
4:30 5:15 4
5:50 6:50 5
3:55 4:00 6
4:20 5:10 7
5:10 6:00 8
3:30 3:35 9
3:30 4:00 10 4:35 4:45 REVIEW wt 2 APR 141988 i
(-
Vol. 4 F-24 Rev. 2 2/88
_., Page 23'of.35 FIGURE 3 ETE VALUES Wind Direction (From):
ALL POINTS.
Degrees:
All (O'-360*)
Location Distance:
.2 Miles 5 Miles
Reference:
Configuration:
2-mile radius.
5-mile radius, No Downwind Sector No Downwind Sector ERPA:
A A-D Distance from Seabrook (mi):
2 5
Scenarios 1
6:00 6:35 2
7:25 8:05 3
4:30 5:15 4
5:50 6:50 5
3:55 4:00 6
4:20 5:10 7
5:10 6:00 8
3:30 3:35 l
9 3:30 4:00 l
10 4:35 4:45 l
2 l
l-REVIEW COP.
l APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-25 Rev. 2 2/88 l
Attaclunent 1,'Page 24'of 35 FIGURE 3 ETE. VALUES Wind Direction (From):
ALL Degrees:
All (O'-360')
Distance Reference Location 10 Miles Configuration:
10-mile 5 Mile Downwind Sector ERPA:
A-G (All ERPAs)
Distance from Seabrook (mi):
10 Scenarios 1
7:05 2
9:55 3
5:50 4
8:05 5
5:30 6
6:40 7
7:25 8
4:25 9
5:30
~
10 6:25 2
REVIEW to.
APR 141986 i
Vol. 4 F-26 Rev. 2 2/88
Attachment.1, Page 25 of 35 FIGURE 4 l2 Protective Action Recommendation Guidance Charts WHOLE BODY GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Projected dose (Item 13 x No action Item 12) is less than 1 rem 2
Shelter dose (Item 21) is Shelter less than 5 rem Shelter dose (Item 21) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose Shelter (Item 19) is equal to or greater than shelter dose Shelter dose (Item 21) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose Evacuate (Item 19) is less than shelter dose THYROID GUIDANCE CHART Projected Dose (Item 16 x No Action Item 12) is less than 5 rem 2
Shelter dose (Item 22) is Shelter less than 25 rem Shelter dose (Item 22) is equal to or greater than 25 rem and evacuation dose Shelter (Item 20) is equal to or greater than shelter dose)
Shelter dose (Item 22) is equal to or greater than 25 rem and evacuation dose Evacuate (Item 20) is less than shelter dose)
Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilation centrol means turning off air conditioners or fans which draw upon outdoor air, closing doors and win-dows, thus preventing access of outdoor air.
Proceed to a basement if available.
REVIEW COF APR 1419BB Vol. 4 F-27 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 26 of 35 FIGURE 4A
[2 SPECIAL FACILITY PROTECTIVE ACTION RECOMMENDATION GUIDANCE CHART WHOLE BODY CUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Shelter dose (Item 9, Figure IB) is less than 5 rem Shelter Shelter dose (Item 9 Figure.8) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose (Item 19 Figure 1A) is equal to or greater than shelter dose Shelter Shelter dose (Item 9. Figure 18) is equal to or greater than 5 rem and evacuation dose (Item 19. Figure IA) is less than shelter dose Evacuate THYROID GUIDANCE CHART IF THEN Shelter dose (Item 10, Figure 18) is less than 25 rem Shelter Shelter dose (Item 10. Figure IB) is greater than 25 rem and evacuation dose (Item 20 Figure IA) is equal to or greater than shelter dose Shelter Shelter dose (Item 10, Figure IB) is greater than 25 rem and evacuation Evacuate or dose (Item 20. Figure 1A) is less consider KI than shelter dose issuance Shelter is to be with ventilation control. Ventilation control means turning off air conditioners or fans which draw upon out-door air, closing doors and windows, thus preventing access of outside air.
Proceed to a basement if available.
REVIEW wi.
APR 141988 Vol. 4 F-28 Rev. 2 2/88
FIGURE 5 SPECIAL FACILITY SHELTERING FACTORS Outside Projected Outside Projected Thy-Distance from Seabrook External (whole body)
Inhalation (thyroid)
Whole Body Dose rold Dose to Warrant Facility Station (alles)
Sheltering Factor (I)
Sheltering Factor (2) to Warrant Evac.
Evac. or KI Distrib.
Hampton til hr t11 hr til hr til hr Seacoast Health Center 3-4 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 rea 50 res 35 rem Brentwood Rockingham County Nursing Home o Blaisdell B1dg.
12-13 0.35 0.5 0.65 14.3 rea 50 rea 35 rem o Fcrnand B1dg.
12-13 0.35 0.5 0.65 14.3 rea 50 rea 35 rem o Mitchell B1dg.
12-13 0.6 0.5 0.65 8.33 rea 50 res 35 res o Underhill Bldg.
12-13 0.6 0.5 0.65 8.33 rea 50 rea 35 rem Rockingham County Jail 12-13 0.25 0.5 0.65 20 rea 50 rea 35 rem Exttstr Ex:tcr HcS1tal 6-7 0.2 0.5 0.65*
10 rea 50 rea 35 rem Ex ttr Health Care 6-7 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 rem Eventide of Exeter (Original Bld 6-7 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 res
.35 rem Eventide of Exeter (Brick Bldg.)g.)*
6-7 0.4 0.5 0.65 12.5 rea 50 rea 35 rem Goodvins of Exeter 6-7 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 rea 50 rea 35 rem Portsmouth Portsmouth Regional Hospital 11-12 0.25 0.5 0.65*
20 rea 50 rea 35 rem Edgewood Centre o East and West Wing p.
11-12 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 rem o South Wing O
11-12 0.5 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 rea 35 ree Clipper Home (Wings) 30 11-12 0.75 0.5 0.65 6.7 rea 50 res 35 res
- p C11pper Home (Center Bldg.)
M 11-12 0.5 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 rea 35 rem rt g
Wentworth Home M
11-12 0.4 0.5 0.65*
12.5 rea 50 rea 35 rem et Pirrstt Avenue Home fg 11-12 0.5 0.5 0.65 10 rea 50 rea 35 rem
<o M
$a w
g*
8 Webster at Rye 7-8 0.8 0.5 0.65 6.25 rea 50 rea 35 ren (1)
Developed from guidance provided in "Structure Shielding from Cloud and Fallout Gamma Ray Sources for Assessing the Consequences of Reactor Accidents." EG & G Inc. Las Vegas y
(2)
Taken from "Public Protection Strateg1es in the Event of a Nuclear Reactor Accident...Multicompartmental Ventilation Model for Shelters."
SAND-77-1555 0
t
(*) These fac111ttes are capable of 100% air rectrculation.
could be substantially greater than 35%.
With cracks around doors and windows sealed, acrual inhalation sheltering protection U
S Vol. 4 F-29 Rev. 2 2/88 y
m
, Page 28'of 35 s
ATTACHMENT A PLANT STATUS INFORMATION AND PROTECTIVE
. ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS Pirures (from-NHY Emergency Response Procedures) 1.
ER 2.0C
- Follow-Up Information Form 2.
ER 5.4 (Figure 2)
- Plume' Exposure Protective Action Flow Chart for Site Area Emergency 3.
ER 5.4 (Figure 3)
- Plume Exposure Protective Action Flow Chart for General Emergency 2
gmEW COP'-
APR 14 BM Vol. 4 F-30 Rev. 2 2/88 Page 29 of 35 FOLLOW-UP TNFORMATTCN FORM To be co=ple:ed by STED to the extent infor:ation is known. Only steps 1-Sa are necessary when issuing a ter=ination update.
1.
Na:e of Co==unicator:
2.
Location: Seabrook S:ation. Seabrook, New Ha=oshire 3.
Classification Level:
(
) Unusual Even:
(
) Site Area E=ergency
(
) Aler
(
l General E:ergency
(
) "The Emergency has been Te r=ina:ed" 4
Declaration Da:e:
Declaration Ti:e:
Ter=ina: ion Da:e:
Ter=ination Ti e:
5.
3rief Description of Event:
Sa. 3rief Cescription of reason (s) f or Ter=ination Meteorological Infor:ation Uooer Lower 6.
Windspeed
=ph (C0784)
(C0733) 7.
Wind Direction FROM (degrees)
(C0786)
(C0735) 3.
Stability Class (Circle)
-1.74
-1.55
-1.37
-0.46
+1.36
-3.64 Upper Del:a-T (C0788)
A B
C D
E F
G Lower Del:a-T A
3 C
D E
F G
(C0787)
-1.12
-1.0
-0.89
-0.30
+0.88
+1.34 9.
Precipitation ( l Yes
(
) No Radioactive Release Rate (NA if none, or not available)
- 10. Radioactivity [
] Eas
(
) Has not been released
- 11. Noble Gas Release Rate:
uCi/sec (RDMS) l l
- 12. Iodine Release Rate:
uCi/sec l
- 13. Particulate Release Rate:
uCi/sec I
l ER 2.0C l
Rev. 03 Page 1 of 2 l
I Page 30 of 35 FOLLOV-UP INFORMATION FORM (Cont'd)
- 14. Ti=e release started:
- 15. Release Terzinated:
(
} YES
(
l NO
(
) N/A
- 16. Ti=e release terzinated
- 17. Esti=ated total release duration hours Offsite Excesure Data Site Soundary 2Mi SMi ICMi
- 13. Whole body dose rate (=R/hr)
- 19. Thyroid dose rate (=R/hr)
- 20. Whole body dose (=re=) (Step vl7 x #18)
- 21. Thyroid dose (=re=) (Step d17 x #19)
- 22. Surf ace Spill Inf or=ation: Volu=e:
liters Concentration:
uCi/=1 Location:
- 23. Surf ace Conta=ination. a.
Onsite:
dp:/100c=2 Location:
b.
Offsite:
dp:/100c=2 Location:
24 Prognocis f or Vorsening or Ter=ination:
l
- 25. Authorized by:
STED/ SED /RM Date/Ti=e
- 26. Ctatact:
l New Ha=pshire Na=e Organization Ti=e Phone No.
Massachusetts Na=e Organization Ti=e Phone No.
l NHY ORO Na e Organization Ti=e Phone No.
ER 2.0C Rev. 03 Page 2 of 2
. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.At t a c ttment. _l,_ _ E a g e_ JA _o f _ 3 5 _ _
NHY_ EPL ANtEP070032.DGN;1 REV.DATE: 04/05/88 FIGURE 2 PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOW CHART FOR SITE AREA EMERGENCY SAE
/N UNMITIGATED S-RE RANG NO NO PROTECTIVE g_RN.P-PED Z-ORANGE.2-RED ACTION RECOMMEN0ATION EXIST?
YES IS TODAY i
BETWEEN M AY 15
\\ NO AND SEPTEMBER 15?
YES RECOMMEND EVACUATION OF HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACHES AND CLOSING SALISBURY BEACH AND THE PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ON PLUM ISLAND PROJECT DOSES AS DIRECTED BY SECTION 2 OR SECTION 3 OF FORM ER-5.4A
Wn r trLHINIt r v) / Ir>v),54.UulN:1 REY. DATE: 04/05/8),
Page 32 of 35 FIGURE 3 PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOW CHART FOR GENERAL EMERGENCY GENERAL EMERGENCY IS CONTINUE COSE ygg POST LCCA NO ASSESSMENT HCNITCR
= USING SECT.*CN
> 5023 R/HR"t 2 OR 3 OF gg FORM E:.-5.4 A IS POST LOCA NO MON] TOR 7
>]D.000 R/HR?/
(2)
YES (1).:F POST LCCA MONITCRS FAIL.MAKE v
CEC:5ICN USING HATCH MONITOR RECOMMEND EVACUiTICM CF IEABRCCK.
'b' 0'T HAMPTCN.HAMPTCN FALLS SCUTH HAMPTCN. KEMSINGTCM. MCRTH -iAMPTCN.
(2).:F ?OST LOCA MONITORS Fi!L.MAKE S ALISEURY..aMESEURY. 30 TOWNS CEC:3 ION USING HATCH MONITOR DOWNWIND TO 10 MILES. (3)
READING OF 8.000mR/HR.
RECOMMEND SHELTER ALL OTHER TOWNS WITHIN EPZ LISTED (3). THIS INCLUDES RECOMMENDING CLOSING ON FORM ER 2.OB THE PARKER RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ON PLUM ISLAND BETWEEN NOTE:
REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR TOWNS DOWNWIND.
MAY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15.
RECOMMEND EVACUATION OF SEABROOK.
(4).THIS INCLUDES RECOMMENDING CLOSING HAMPTCN.HAMPTON FALLS.AND SALISBURY BEACH AND THE PARKER TOWNS DOWNWIND TO 5 MILES. (4)
RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ON RECOMMEND SHELTER ALL OTHER AREAS PLUM ISLAND BETWEEN MAY 15 WITHIN EPZ LISTED ON FORM 2.08 AND SEPTEMBER 15*
NOTE: REFER TO FIGURE 5 FOR TOWNS DOWNWIND.
AN AUTOMATIC PAR SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY THE STED.
(SHELTER 0-2 MILES. 5 MILES DOWNWIND WITH BEACH EVACUATION AND CLOSING DURING THE SUMMER BETWEEN MAY 15 AND SEPTEMBER 15).
Page 33 of 35 ATTACHMENT B ACCESS CONTROL POINTS FOR NEW HAMPSHIRE EPZ Reference traffic management manual for traffic and access control points.
NOTE The Traffic Management Manual allocates responsibility for Implementation of Traffic and Access Control Points.
I REVIEW CUF l
APR 141988 l
i l
Vol. 4 F-31 Rev. 2 2/88 l
l l
Page 34 of 35 ATTACHMENT C EMERGENCY ORGANIZATION STATUS AND LOCAL CONDITIONS A.
Response Status of the State and Town Emergency Organizations 1.
The protective action decision must take into consideration the status of state and town emergency personnel and resources and the timing of the protective action announcements to the public.
2.
Of particular importance to precautionary actions for the beach areas is the status of the State Police and local police to implement traffic and access controls.
3.
Status considerations include:
a.
Availability of personnel b.
Time required for mobilization c.
Degree to which mobilization has progressed d.
Time required for implementation of emergency actions B.
Local Conditions 1.
Local conditions within an affected area may constrain protective action decisions and their implementation.
2.
Local conditions should be reported to decision makers by local EOC personnel through the IFO at Newington.
3.
Pertinent local conditions include:
l a.
Conditions of road and evacuation routes considering:
i (1) Jeasonal travel impediments g y7g3g. ggp (2) Status of road repairs APR 14 t988 (3) Surface conditions due to weather i
Vol. 4 F-32 Rev. 2 2/88
--, Page 35-of 35 ATTACHMENT C (cont'd)
(4) Natural or man-made impediments (5) Effect of traffic signals on traffic flow in direction of evacuation, b.
Population density and distribution c.
Evacuation route capabilities d.
Inclement weather conditions that would affect travel (snow. fog, heavy rains, etc.)
Local events which may present requirements for special notifica-e.
tion, traffic control, transportation assistance f.
Status of schools and other special facilities.
l l
I REVIEW COP)
APR 141988 i
Vol. 4 F-33 Rev. 2 2/88 e
i, Page 1 of 12 i
Maps for recording Ingestion Pathway data, including locations of key land use, agricultural facilities, water supply location and related information, are kept at the State and local EOCs and at the IF0/EOFs.
These maps, which are too large to be included in the plan proper, are suitable for use in identifying areas and facilities where protective actions may be necessary and for recording survey and monitoring data.
2.6.7 Criteria for Selecting Protective Actions for Direct Exposure Within the Plume Exposure EPZ One purpose of developing a RERP is to reduce the response time in the event of an emergency at a nuclear power station. To facilitate planning, a number of accident scenarios have been developed by NRC.
These are the basis for the pro-tective action decision criteria discussed in this section.
It should be noted, however, that these criteria are sufficiently flexible to be applied to any type of radiological release from a nuclear power plant.
Procedures for application of these criteria are contained in Protective Action Decision Criteria for the State of New Hampshire.
See NHRERP Volume 4, NHCDA Procedures, Appendix F.
In addition to the criteria contained in this section, plant status and prognosis are considered for early precautionary actions for seasonal popula-tions. Figure 2.6-6 is a flow diagram of the process by which plant status and l2 prognosis are considered to determine early precautionary actions.
If an ALERT is declared and plant conditions indicate that a major plant system is unstable or degrading, the beaches will be closed in Hampton and Seabrook and access control will be established.
If a SITE AREA EMERGENCY is declared and plant conditions are stable, the beaches will be closed in Hampton and Seabrook and access control will be established.
If a SITE AREA EMERGENCY is declared and plant conditions indicate that a major plant system is unstable or degrading, the Hampton and Seabrook beach areas will be evacuated and access control will be established for areas within 2 miles of Seabrook Station.
2 The discussion below explains the decision process for choosing evacuation or shelter as a protective action during an emergency response.
The eight variables involved in choosing between shelter and evacuation are:
REVIEW col 3 Rev.
2/88 Vol. 1 2.6-24 APR 141988
^
REV. DATES 94/13/88 NHY EPLAHrEP979975.DQel, Page 2 of 12 ALERT IS A MAJOR PLANT NO SYSTEM UNSTABL e-NO ACTION OR DEGRADING YES U
CLOSE HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACHES AND CONTROL ACCESS
]
SITE AREA EMERGENCY IS A MAJOR PLANT CLOSE HAMPTON AND YSTEM UNSTABL NO =
SEABROOK BEACHES OR DEGRADING AND CONTROL ACCESS YES V
EVACUATE HAMPTON AND SEABROOK BEACH AREAS AND CONTROL ACCESS V
EVALUATE DOSE PER FIGURE 2.6-7 FIGURE 2.6-6 PRECAUTIONARY DECISION CRITERIA FOR SEASONAL POPULATIONS A 8.S*X))*
Page 3 of 12 REVIEW COPY APR 13 E88 A
h 1
g Protected cose SOTH NO PAG m taceee er Emma P AQ #er No Action Requeed e
P A Q,,
er whose Geer a
Espeewe9 YES 1
FCM CNG CR 80TN Recommend CPHS Notify g
tne Ocot. of Agnculture to Ptsce Omary Anemela on Stored Food o
D 2
E c.na s.eeween e 71me to Release Recornenend avaciaatJon
- Plume Artwai Time h
- Detav Time
- Action Time
- Ottsit e Constraints
,NO YES 3
FOR SHELTER Csa ens ONLY Aenea e*1 **"
NO Conduct Monitormg Rocommend Sheltee
- e. Pune ene Pueset and Decontamhatbrt H
DAF YES N
1
= FOR BOTH EVACUATION DRF we AND SHELTER i
WNCLE BC0Y wreen *senwes TN YRCtQ
= enere sneerssert i
1 I
Recommend Shener 1
' SHELTER sees S
8
.ees 5
p an w NOT CEC SMi NOT CECISNE Snenw w
- "*I'""'**
t.es.aasa mm. e ww =.
Basse ween more Cetanee E,sessi
> me me ~.i
^aa ~
l
...e.ee,
m,e.,,
l
/
EVA CW DCN I
EVA C1,iA T:CN l
..m.n.n.i.cmi..
Re l
FIGURE 2.6-7 Decision Criteria for Selecting between Evacuation and Sheltering Recommendations l
Vol. 1 2.6-26 Rev. 2 2/88
REVIEW COPY APR 131988 Page 4 of 12 1
vi. a ao
- m. a a
l n.
rrs 2
uar P9, uo w.a t
,,e
,,,.dmzanus.u.
_-l PAG Mih AGE.
P f.c o
y
"*
- a=
l a-P O Ws.
a g
c bl Yrs Son sunsACE W
113 FCA OTHEM FCCQ
- ^ IEa sU**' Y v
I on,.s u.a.. o.
o
.,a..e m.,.
o m s e..u....., s..,,
- i. e -. o..,,..
r..
a c. c..
- i. c s,..u si a
o..
p.c..m s nu, n..u.,.c.
o.s a.. e.
.......u.
I' P
i..u.i. n.
T..
sa== n T-.a..e io..,n
- v......,
... s so.a n.,,
un so...
aa- *+==
' 3a
" 3e r
(
- o. t-r,
- o. ti
.e a tm.
wo
- * ~ -
uo
.e m (
.m. e a-.o-, m.
saa =
l
- n.. un n
e.
s~aa '~
% %.a mzan.m cm.
PAG 5 lar es' PAG 3 te u zanes?
l l' 3b
\\
i l
e-... s.,...
.., i
~o rrs o.....,.,..
......c.
E.staus E=
, Anast PAG 3 kr u mEacts' im. ~. -..
oi.
s.,
. u.,
==
......,s..,
res so n...,,
<r 4
.-.ci..,,..
u,,
o..,.
~..,..,.,,
,c..
- s.,~,
l 4
l i.........
..o....,...,
oi..,
FIGURE 2.6 8 Decision Criteria for Recommended Ingestion Pathway Protective Actions Vol. 1 2.6-27 Rev. 2 2/88
~
Page 5 of 12 1.
Protective Action Guides - These have been described and presented in Section 2.6.3.
Table 2.6-1 presents the PAGs for the direct exposure path-way.
2.
Projected Dose - The amount of radiation received through direct exposure to the plume assuming no protective actions are taken. The projected dose is determined by DPHS according to accident assessment procedures described in Section 2.5.
3.
Time to Release - An estimate of the time remaining between the present and an anticipated release of radioactive materials from the plant. This esti-mate is provided to DPHS by the power plant operator.
4.
Plume Arrival Time - The time period between release of radioactive material into the atmosphere and the arrival of the leading edge of the plume at the reference location.
DPHS will obtain this information from the Utility, through its own monitoring, and from independent plume dispersion modeling 2
undertaken by DPHS from the State EOC.
5.
Plume Exposure Time - The elapsed time between plume arrival at the reference location and the time when it has passed the reference location.
DPHS will obtain this information from the Utility in accordance with established Utility procedures and from its own accident assessment acti-vity.
The cloud exposure time is determined by the duration of the release and meteorology.
6.
Delay Time - The elapsed time between the determination that a release will occur and the issuance of protective action instructions to the public.
2 7.
Action Time - The estimated time required to complete an evacuation of an area, or to implement sheltering.
NH0EM will use thene estimates, which are l2 based upon an assessment of actual road conditions existing during an emergency. Offsite constraints to evacuation will also be considered.
Vol. 1 2.6-28 REVIEW COF' Hev. 2 2/88 APR 141988
Page 6 of 12 8.
Dose Reduction Factor (DRF) - The DRF is the amount of protection offered by a protective action.
It is measured as the proportion of the projected dose that is expected after a protective action has been taken.
The DRF can range from zero (complete protection) to 1.0 (no protection).
The PAGs have been predetermined as outlined in Table 2.6-1.
DRFs for typical structures in both Plume Exposure EPZs have also been predetermined.
The values for the other six variables will be determined during an emergency response.
Figure 2.6-7 is a flow diagram of the process in which these eight variables are used by DPHS and NHOEM to derive protective action reccamendatior.s l2 for the Governor.
This New Hampshire protective action selection process is based upon EPA guidance (EPA 520/1-78-0018). The process is built around six chronological decision steps, represented by the numbered diamond-shaped blocks in Figure 2.6-7.
At each of these six steps one or more of the eight decision variables, previously outlined, is required as input, and the output is either a direct protective action decision, or a determination to move to the next decision step. The following discussion traces the six-step decision process.
NOTE: Special consideration is given to the advisability of closing the public and private beaches within the EPZ at ALERT classification, as a precau-tionary measure, regardless of the availability of a projected dose data.
(See Volume 4. Appendix F Protective Action Decision Criteria.)
Block *1 - At Block si, DPHS must determine whether projected doses exceed PAGs for whole-'oody or thyroid doses.
Input data needed for this determination are listed in Box A.
They are the PAGs, from Table 2.6-1, and the projected doses based on present and anticipated releases.
The projected doses are com-pared to the comparable PAG doses.
If neither PAG is exceeded, the decision, as noted in Box B.
is that no protective action is required.
If either PAG is exceeded for any municipality DPHS will notify the Department of Agriculture of the need to place dairy animals that are within the plume exposure EPZ on stored feed (Box B).
This action is to be taken automatically upon an affir-mative response in Block one since this particular action would have to occur prior to completion of either sheltering or evacuation within the plume exposure EPZ.
DPHS and NHOEM will then proceed to the second decision step.
2 REVIEW COP' Vol. 1 2.6-29 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 7 of 12 Block e2 - At Block #2, DPHS and NHOEM must determine whether evacuation of the area in which whole body and/or thyroid PAG doses will be exceeded can be completed prior to the arrival of the plume.
The input data f'or this deter-mination are outlined IN Box D.
These variables are Time to Release, Plume Arrival Time, Delay Time, and Action Time. The Action Time variable will include NHOEM assessment of offsite constraints to evacuation as indicated in l2 Attachment C to Appendix F, Volume 4.
If evacuation of the area in which PAGs are exceeded can be completed prior to plume arrival, then evacuation will in all likelihood be the recommended protective action as indicated in Box E.
The final evacuation recommendation will be based on the degree to which the PAGs are projected to be exceeded and the DRF effectiveness of evacuation.
If eva-cuation cannot be completed prior to plume arrival, DPHS and NHOEM aust proceed l2 s
to the third decision step.
I REVIEW COF l
APR 0 61988 Vol. 1 2.6-30 Rev. 2 2/88 l
1 Page 8 of 12 Block 83 - At the third decision step DPHS and NHOEM must determine whether l2 protective action can be implemented before the plume has passed.
At this point.
DPHS and NHOEM must consider Time to Release. Plume Arrival, Plume Exposure l2 Time Delay line and Action Time lor the alternative protective actions. There are three possible types of conclusion for this determination.
First, it may be determined that there is insufficient time to implement either protective action for the area being considered.
In this case, DPHS must advise that corrective rather than protective actions (i.e., monitoring and decontamination) should be taken. This case is represented in Box G.
Second, DPRS and NHOEM may l2 determine that there is sufficient time to derive some protection from shelter, but insufficient time to implement evacuation.
In this case, shelter will be advised, as shown in Box F (evacuation may be considered following passage of the plume due to exposure from ground deposition as discussed in Section 2.9.2).
If both sheltering and evacuation begin only after arrival of the Plume, and both can be implemented before the plume has passed, DPHS and NHOEM must proceed l2 to the fourth decision step.
Block 84 - At this point in the decision process, NHOEM and DPHS begin to l2 address the tradeoff between evacuation and shelter.
It has been determined in Block 83 that both sheltering and evacuation can begin only while the population is exposed to the plume. The question that must be addressed by NHOEM and DPHS l2 is, "Which protective action provides the best protection under these circumstances?" Evacuees will be exposed while evacuating, but exposures will drop to zero when they have cleared the area.
Sheltering provities protection quicker, but its effectiveness decreases as plume exposure time increases The decision to be made in this step concerns a determination of which pathway is most important.
If only one pathway exceeds the PAG in Block #1, this decision is automatically determined. When both pathways are involved, the decision is made by comparing the whole-body and thyroid doses received after protective actions have been taken.
If the whole-body PAG exceeds the thyroid PAG. all l2 subsequent decisions are based on the whole-body dose.
If the reverse ?,s true, subsequent decisions are based on the thyroid dose.
If both are equally impor-tant, subsequent decisions can be cased on either dose.
REVIEW COI^
Vol. 1 2.6-31 Rev. 2 2/88
Page 9 of 12 Block s5 - Parallel decisions are made at the fifth decision step.
This parallel path is shown by the pair of Blocks numbered Block 35.
These blocks address the same question.
The decision in one is referenced to thyroid dose.
and in the other to whole-body dose. The question asked in this step is "Does shelter or evacuation provide the greatest protection?" This decision is made by using fast and simple screening calculations that compare the effectiveness of sheltering versus evacuation.
If evacuation provides the best protection, then evacuation is chosen as the protective action (Box J).
The DRF for evac-uation considers the fact that individuals must drive through the Plume and are protected only by their automobiles until they clear the area.
The DRF for sheltering considers the fact that as the duration of exposure increases, sheltering effectiveness decreases. The criterin used in this decision block are simplified to facilitate rapid analysis. The simple screening calculations are biased away from evacuation, thus. If evacuation is indicated, evacuation should be ordered. On the other hand, if these criteria do not indicate evac-uation, the results are inconclusive and a more detailed comparison of the two protective actions must be undertaken at next decision step.
Block s6 - This decision asks '.:.e same question, "Which protective action uffers the greatest protectiont" The analysis is based on more complete data and detailed calculations.
It provides a better evaluation of the comparative effectiveness of shelter and evacuation.
If evacuation is still indicated. It will be recourended (Box J).
If shelter is indicated. then shelter will be recommended (Box I).
The decision procesn above contains assumptions in Blocks #4, 85, and s6 that sheltering occurs in small structures such as residential dwelling units.
Sheltering may also occur in large structures such as schools, institutional facilities, and office buildings.
Large structure sheltering can be viewed as a separate protective action which requires separate evaluation.
Because there are a limited number of large structures in both Plume Exposure EPZs, this option is not being considered by New Hampshire for the general population.
For institutional facilities whose population may already be in large structures, sheltering may be the preferred protective action. To evaluate this case, the large structure DRF may be substituted in the above decision process and a separate evaluation made for the institutional facilities.
2 REVIEW COP' APR 14 GB8 Vol. 1 2.6-32 Rev. 2 8/86 Page 10 of 12 As mentioned above, the decision to shelter or evacuate must be made with reference to a specific location. New Hampshire will use local government boundaries to define the reference locations.
Therefore, protective actions will be decided and implemented on a municipality-by-municipality basis.
New Hampshire has chosen this option because implementation of protective actions on any other basis is considered less manageable.
2.6.8 Decision Process for Selection of Protective Actions for Ingestion Pathway Exposures The decision process for determining protective actions for Ingestion Pathway exposures is similar to, but considerably simpler than, the decision pro-cess for determining protective actions against direct exposure in the Plume Exposure EPZ.
Figure 2.6-8 is a flow diagram of the process used to determine l2 which of the protective actions is to be used for each of the Ingestion Pathways. The process is built around three chronological decision steps for each of three ingestion paths. The decision steps are represented by the num-bered diamondshaped blocks in Figure 2.6-8.
Input to each step is a comparison l2 of dose to the Ingestion Pathway PAGs which are listed in Table 2.6-2.
To facilitate rapid decision making, a radioactivity level, which corre-sponds to the PAG for a particular food pathway, will be used. This level is the amount of radiation in food, water, or animal feed that would ultimately result in exceeding the PAG if it was nilowed to pass up through the food chain to the human consumers..For example, if the level of Iodine-131 on a pasture exceeds the precalculated radioactivity level, the human dose resulting from the pasture-animal-milk pathway would exceed the PAG if preventive actions were not taken for allk. This radioactivity-level-to-PAG-dose-conversion calculation has been described by FDA/HHS in 43 FR 58790.
Precalculated levels for speci-fic pathways are contained in DPHS procedures.
Total dose committment from all pathways and for all nuclides tcken together will be calculated in determining exceedance of preventive and emergency PAGs.
The following discussion traces the three-step decision process for Ingestion Pathway exposure.
The term "response level" refers to the precalcu-lated radioactivity levels discussed above.
REVIEW COM bbb Vol. 1 2.6-33 Rev. 2 2/88
l
., Page 11 of 12 Block *1 - At Block
- 1. DPHS must determine whether any Ingestion Pathway may be exposed to radiation. The decision is a simple determination of whether or not there may be a radioactive release which affects areas beyond the site boundary of the power plan'4.
Input consists of advisories from the Utility.
If the answer is no. further consideration of protective action for the Ingestion Pathway is not required.
If the answer is yes. DPHS must progress to the next decision step.
Block 22 - At Block *2. DPHS must determine whether a Preventive Action PAG may be exceeded for one or more of the three Ingestion Pathways taken together.
This entails using the response levels for (a) milk. (b) other foods. and (c) water to determine whether the Preventive Action PAGs. listed in Table 2.6-2. may be exceeded.
If the answer is negative, no protective action is required.
If the answer is positive for the three Ingestion Patnways, Preventive Actions will be recommended will be recommended until more definitive 2
analysis can be undertaken. Volume 2, Appendix D lists all consercial agri-cultural facilities within the 50-mile EPZ.
Figure 2.6-8 lists the preventive actions in parallel for the three ingestion paths.
Each involves control of the ingestible material by the appropriate State Agency followed by field testing to more accurately define the levels of contamination. For example, DPHS has the authority to close shellfish harvesting areas.
In the event that harvesting of shellfish should not be done, because of contamination, the Director, DPHS will invoke this authority by notifying the Dcpartment of Fish and Game to restrict harvesting and to control access to harvesting areas. Collection of field samples is further described in Section 2.5.3.
Upon activating Preventive Actions DPHS must proceed to the third decision step.
Block #3 - At Block #3, DPHS must determine whether Emergency Action PAGs are, or may be, exceeded. The determination is based first on a comparison of dose projections to the Emergency Action PAG levels.
If predictive techniques show potential for exceedance of PAG 1evels of the ingestible commodity, DPHS will advise control or condemnation pending verification by field data.
If field data confirm predicted contamination, DPHS will advise condemnation or storage for suitable future use.
If field data show levels below the cppropriate response levels, State control of the ingestible material will be REVIEW COPT APR 141988 Vol. 1 2.6-34 Rev. 2 2/88 Page 12 of 12 relinquished.
In either event, DPHS will issue advisories on the nature of the controls for each ingestible material and means for minimizing ingestion of radioactive materials.
REVIEW COP' APR 141988 Vol. 1 2.6-35 Rev. 2 8/86
n _
Attachment.3, Page 1 of 4 Supplemental Analysis of Potential Shelter Capacity of the Seabrook EPZ 8each Areas 1.
Shelter Study and Updated Population Estimates The total available shelter space has been determined by the Shelter Study performed for New Hampshire Yankee by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corocration.
This study assessed the potential available shelter space in commercial, municioal, tax exempt, and residential buildings-in the beach areas of the Seabrook Station EPZ.
Potential shelters were considered to be those structures that met the dose reduction factor criteria of the NHRERP.
The study separately evaluated the total capacity of the potential shelters for the tgo groups of structures, public and residential.
Public structures are buildings that are normally accessible to the public for commerical or business use.
Recognizing that not all building space would be available, the gross area derived from tax records was reduced by an availability factor to yield a net area that i
represented available space not taken up by equipment, sales stock, internal features, etc., and that could be occupied by persons taking shelter.
When the potential available shelter space was totaled, the number of persons that can be provided short-term shelter was estimated by dividing the total by 10 square feet per person (see Federal Emergency Management Agency, Radiation Safety in Shelters, CPG 2-6.4, September 23, 1983).
For residential buildings, it was assumed they would be occupied at their normal rate of 6.24 persons per building.
This occu-pancy rate was determined from the work of KLD Associates..The total potential shelter space in residences was determined by multiplying the occupancy rate by the number of residences.
In order to arrive at the total number of persons who could be sheltered, public and residential shelter caoacities were added together.
For the ceach areas of Seabrook and Hamoton, south of Great Boar's Head, there is a total of 91,527 potential shelter spaces.
This available shelter soace can be comoared to the size of the beach poou-lation derived from aerial photographs taken on a crowded, goed weather, summer weekend in July, 1987.
For the same areas of Hamoton and Seabrook, the estimated peak population was determined to be 31,239.
Therefore, available potential shelter capacity is almost three times the estimated peak beach population.
L/439SB.1 Page 2 of 4 3
2.
Distribution of Shelter As a means of showing the relative distribution of !dentified potential shelter capacity and the beach population, a man and chart of the areas of concern have been developed.
These are presented as Attachments 1 and 2.
The attachments show graphically tne number of potential shelterees that can be accommodated in public and residential shelters along the beach and tne number of observed persons actually on the beach and in beach areas east of Route 1A counted from the aerial pho-tographs discussed above.
The shelteree capacities and persons on the beach are shown in increments of two-tenths of a mile.
These graphics show that the population on the beach is distributed in approximately direct proportion to the availability of shelter capacity. The graphics show that sufficient shelter capacity is located in all areas within one-half mile of the populated beach areas.
This distribution of shelters is such that shelter capacity can be accessed by beach geers within a matter of minutes and certainly within one-half hour.
3.
Oose Reduction Factors of Beach Structures Each of the potential public shelters identified by the Stone & Webster Shelter Stuoy was visually inspected externally by a health physicist who estimated the structure's cloud shielding factors.
The purpose of this examination was to ensure that identified structures conform to the dose reduction factor assumed by the NHRERP.
Aldrich, et al., Public Protection Strategies for Potential Nuclear Reactor Accidents; Sheltering Concepts with Existing Public and Private Structure, SAND-77-1725 was used as the reference for the purpose of assigning cloud shielding factors.
The seasonal residences in the Hampton and Seabrook Beach areas were visually inspected and found to be of wood frame or more substantial construction and therefore have the dose reduction factors (DRF) used by the NHRERP.
For dose reduction factors associated with an external cloud, it is reasonable to assume that beach unwinterized area structures meet at least the 0.9 dose reduction factor (a wood frame structure without a basement) on the basis of information provided in EPA 520/1-78-00lA, Protective Evaluation, Part 1, The Effectiveness of Sheltering as a Protective Action Against Nuclear Accidents Involving Gaseous Releases at page 18.
Further, the thyroid dose reduction factor assumed by the NHRERP assu-mes an air exchange rate of 2 changes per hour.
This is a reasonable assumption for unwinterized structures since the maximum air exchange for a structure without ventilation, weatherstripping or storm sashes is 2 changes per hour (see EPA 520/1-78-001A, page 8, Table 2).
L/439SB.2
, Page 3 of 4 SEABROOK SHEl.TER STUDY Attachment i POTENTIAL SH ELTER CAPACITY (PERSONS)
Ne's i
CSSE%EO 9EACH SH ELT ER E E S; PC Pb'LATIC N Public and "f
c TT
'e t2 MILE FRCM COAST R, ESC ENCES(t)
HAMPTCN
!)
sPU BLIC (a: \\g e[
)V C\\
6 ROUTE 51 %
1543 23,728 2 MILE RADIUS 4192 15,260
/
A,,
/
HAWM 1546 14.565 f
D 200 656 7.530
\\
516 5.674 1863 l
,\\
1.101 TOTAL tC'*
TOTAL 83.217 13.355 Ih 9
t 655 357 g
O tr_s I
O fs h t
571 1192 h
,/
\\
-l 0
335 SEASRoCE
- U 231g UAD
\\
234 ic6o
/
605
[J j
e 33 173 k
sEAsnocx 644 y
88 381 185 278 (m
474 1789 5
70TA' D
f'-
k '*3 g>g ic7AL t
2.417 8310 yn,g >s y.
As -',
9 53 SgAsoceg RCUTE 286
/
(a) Tho total shelter capacity (persons) in public buildings (i.e. churches, restaurants, motels,etc.).
(b) Tha total shelter capacity (persons) in private residences.
' {c) (a) + (b).
(d) Tha total number of people on the beach,in the water,and on the ocean side of Route 1 A on July 18,1987 at approximately 12:20 P.M., in.2 mile increments.
r-,
Page 4 of 4 Attachment,'
24,000 -
Distribution of Beach Population and Potential Shelter Capacity (Public & Residences)
~
20,000 -
15,000 -
Potential Shelter Capacity 10,000-Beach Population 4,000-3,000-2,000-1,000-l
- y..
i...............
,,. : :1;. 9: : j.;4i M::.......,:g::;3:p g
0 i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
0.2 mile H AM PTON sEABROOK i
\\
COLKETED c%hC MA%N11d',4 9
8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g g g,, iu -
00CKEliNG i 9 " # -
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BRANCH before the ATOMIO SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Off-site Emergency (Sesbrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, George H.
Lewald, one of the attorneys for the Applicants herein, hereby certify that on April 15, 1988, I made service of Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 6 (Sheltering) and Applicants' Supplemental Response to Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site EP Interrogatories and Request for the Production of Documents f
to the Applicants (Set No. 3) by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):
Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Robert Carrigg, Chairman Chairman, Atomic Safety and Board of Selectmen Licensing Board Panel Town Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atlantic Avenue Conmission North Hampton, NH 03862 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Judge Gustave A.
Linenberger Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20009 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
?
6 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General East West Towers Building 25 Capitol Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301-6397 Bethesda, MD 20814 Adjudicatory File Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the General Counsel Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ccumission East West Towers Building One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
4350 East West Highway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A.
Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.
O.
Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J.
P. Nadeau Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire Matthew T.
Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O.
Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A.
Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire U.S.
Senate Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Washington, DC 20510 Whilton & McGuire (Attn:
Tom Burack) 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 f 1
E
'(
. A-
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S.
Lord Town Manager Board of Selectman Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472
-Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Mr. Ed Thomas Judith H. Mizner, Esquire FEMA, Region I 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 442 John W. McCormack Post Newburyport, MA 01950 Office and Court House Post Office Square Boston, MA 02109 l
Charles P. Graham, Esquire Leonard Kopelman, Esquire Murphy and Graham Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
i 33 Low Street 77 Franklin Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Boston, MA 02110 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 376 Main Street Haverhill, MA 01830 l
/ wo b
' George H.
Lewald
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail) i.